James B

I surely don't have a problem with Leupold I have however gotten perfect service from several other brands of scopes for a very small fraction of the cost. The saying on this board that you get what you pay for has held true for me with many different brands. Therefore for me I can seldom see the need nor the way to justify spending two or three times as much as I need too for good optics.

338

I went with the Monarch in 4x12x40. Both are great scopes. I have never had problems with either and for my eyes the nikons do seem a little clearer but that is probably in my mind ..Bill

steve d

Well I know for sure one of the mentioned in this post is AMERICAN Made. Maybe this won't influence you but when possible I, try to support the home team. Regards Steve

MOTurkeyTamer

Right now, the Leupolds look even better than they normally do. Several mail order companies are having sales on existing stock of select Leupold models. Natchez, Midsouth and Midway to name a few companies. If price is a consideration, there's not a better time to buy a Leupold.

TREEDOG

On Remington.com a poll on prefered scopes shows...
15% bushnell
51% Leupold
9% Nikon
8% simmons
5% swarovski
4% zeiss
8% other
out of a total of 10,099 votes.

Quilly

isn't nikon made still somewhere over in korea or somewhere around there?

theoutdoorwizard

Depends on the Size and Make. The Buckmasters and the low power Monarchs are made in the Philippines, where the high power and the Monarch Golds are made in Japan.

Jon Jackoviak
The Optic Zone
www.theoptizone.com
[email protected]

ddabus2

Rack old Buddy

I am a gun salesman and a avid hunter. NO ONE so far has mentioned the fact that at night or low light conditions Leupold stands very tall above all scopes. I used to work for a gun smith and we went to his ranch in the hill country of Texas to test scopes. Mainly because I did not believe what he told me.
We took every known scope we could find. Nikon, Leupold, Swift, Ziess, every kind but Bushsmell (no I did not miss-spell that either). We used Red lens and White lens on one million candle power spot lights looking at cows and deer, right before sun up and just before sun down. He proved it to me that a Leupold is better in low light conditions. Like early or late evening when you think you see something moving in the shadows. The naked eye can not see, but the leupold can. Given the same conditions a Leupold was a 200 -225 yrd gun and Nikon was 150 -175 at best.
People can blame it on age, well I was 32 at the time. I am now 40 and own nothing BUT Leupold. Honestly Nikon does make a good Bino. But thats about it.

Derek

Sniper151

I agree with cyber. Leupold is hard to surpass in quality and unsurpassed for warranty. I have shot many quality scopes with some that many hunters never hear of. Leatherwood and Unertl were at one time my favorites. The Leatherwood that was once manufactured in Texas is now made across the ocean and I can't see $2500 for a new fixed 10x Unertl. Leupold's upline Vari-X III, tacticals and LPS are top shelf.

Californiadoctor

ddabuse2, did all of the scopes you tested have the same aperatures? Light gathering power is purely a function of aperture and increases as the square of the aperature. For example if the Leupold you used had an aperature of 40 mm while the Nikon was only 32 mm, the Leupold would have (40/32)^2 = 1.56 or 156% of the light gathering capacity of the Nikon. If the aperatures are the same, the light gathering power will be the same and low light performance should be the same.

Californiadoctor