View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 1675. You may not vote on this poll
Which Scope?
04-24-2012, 10:24 PM
#291
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 21,193
Back in 1985 I purchased a Tasco 3-9x40 World Class Scope. I put that on a Ruger M77 in 7mm mag. And at the time, that was a fairly expensive (for the little I was earning then) scope for me. That scope has been on that same rifle for 27 years and I have NEVER had to adjust it. It has never failed me. It has never caused me one bit of grief. And it really is a good scope. Back then Tasco was a very reputable scope company that sold high quality scopes. And they still do I am sure. But I was so impressed with that scope, I saved money and put one of my Remington Woodsmaster 742 Carbine 30-06. Again, I have never had to touch that scope.
Since then I have purchased Leupold, Redfield, Bushnell, Nikon, Simmons, and all of them are great scopes. But it is hard to believe how well those old Tasco scopes have held up.
Since then I have purchased Leupold, Redfield, Bushnell, Nikon, Simmons, and all of them are great scopes. But it is hard to believe how well those old Tasco scopes have held up.
10-30-2012, 07:59 AM
#293
Spike
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2
I have been a longtime Leupold user but have recently gone over to Nikon Monarchs 2-8 for our 416 Rigbys and the Nikon Slughunter 1.65-5 for a 500 AccRelNyati.
Why?
The eye-relief is better designed. The Nikon 2-8 has 4.0-3.8" eyerelief which is OK, but the Slughunter has 5.0"-5.0" eyerelief throughout which is wonderful for a heavykicking rifle. (Even 5" eyerelief isn't foolproof, though, as a friend of mine demonstrated when shooting the 7000 ftlb rifle.)
Eyerelief is not the main criterion, though, for a scope. A scope must have excellent clear glass, and these Nikons qualify on this score. Excellent. 95% light transmission on the Monarchs, 92% on the Slughunter.
Finally, and as important, the scope must hold together. Judging from feedback of many shooters and thousands of big bore rounds, it appears that the Nikon are considerably more sturdy than even the fabled Leupolds.
So I would say that there is a new kid on the block.
Why?
The eye-relief is better designed. The Nikon 2-8 has 4.0-3.8" eyerelief which is OK, but the Slughunter has 5.0"-5.0" eyerelief throughout which is wonderful for a heavykicking rifle. (Even 5" eyerelief isn't foolproof, though, as a friend of mine demonstrated when shooting the 7000 ftlb rifle.)
Eyerelief is not the main criterion, though, for a scope. A scope must have excellent clear glass, and these Nikons qualify on this score. Excellent. 95% light transmission on the Monarchs, 92% on the Slughunter.
Finally, and as important, the scope must hold together. Judging from feedback of many shooters and thousands of big bore rounds, it appears that the Nikon are considerably more sturdy than even the fabled Leupolds.
So I would say that there is a new kid on the block.
10-03-2014, 04:40 AM
#299
Spike
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: The North Country
Posts: 38
I'm a big Nikon fan. I have 5 Nikons. The newer Nikon Prostaffs are the best bang for your buck scope. Extremely clear and concise optics, comparable to Leupold. And affordable. 3-9x50 Prostaff is my favorite.
