Couple of scope questions
 

I'm looking for a good quality scope fo my recently purchased T/C Encore pistol. I'm narrowing it down to a couple the Burris Handgun scope in 3-12 x 32mm and the Nikon Monarch 2.5-8 x 28. I know both of these are quality scopes but does anyone have any experience with either brand? Also, what determines the light gathering ability of the scope; end objective or exit pupil? The Nikon has a larger exit pupil but the Burris has a better FOV and higher magnification.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

Buy the Nikon, without a doubt.

Bigger objectives allow more light to enter the scope. More important is the quality and completeness of the coatings on the lenses. The Monarch uses the Ultra Clear Coat system to fully multi-coat all the lenses in the scope, and this give the Monarchs a remarkable 95% light transmission. A good fully multi-coated scope with a 28mm objective can easily get more light to the eye than a lesser scope with a 32mm objective.

Also, the higher the magnification, the less light that gets through the scope and the dimmer it will be.

I'd also recommend the Nikon for the lower magnification. 12x magnification is not, IMO, beneficial with a pistol that is already unsteady, and the effective range of a pistol doesn't warrant that much power anyway. The lower magnification will allow a steadier scope picture, and 8x is plenty for shots out to 150 yards.

Mike

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

I am with DRIFTRIDER go monarch

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

check out www.opticstalk.com as they have the info you want, including the formulas that take into account the exit pupil, lens diameter, etc.

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

I'd also go with the Nikon. I have a Burris 4X pistol scope and two Nikon variable pistol scopes and the Nikons are far superior in clarity and light gathering. And like driftrider said, 12X in a pistol scope is pretty much useless under hunting conditions. Even a pistol scope at 8X is almost impossible to hold steady. Both of my Nikons are 1.5-5X on Encore barrels in 22-250 and .308 and thats been plenty enough magnification for shots out to 200yds.

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

I'd go with the Nikon...........heard good things .The Burris rifle scope I had I didn't like very much !

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

i would buy the nikon

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

-

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

Thanks, I apprecite all of the replies. Here are some specs on the 2 scopes.

Nikon:

Weight (oz): 10.9

NikoPlex Reticle
Length (in): 9.7
Eye Relief (in): 12 - 19
F.O.V. @ 100 yards (ft): 13.1 - 4.1
Exit Pupil (mm): 11.2 - 3.5

Burris:

Weight (oz.): 16

Plex Reticle
Length (in.): 10.8
Eye Relief (in.): 19 - 12.5
Field of View @ 100yds (ft.): 14 - 4
Exit Pupil (mm.): 9.1 - 2.8
Adjustable Objective Range (yds): 25 - infinity

I've also been curious as to why some scopes are much longer than others. I guess possibly in this case it could be attributed to the Burris needing an AO. The Burris is also quite a bit heavier as well. In the rifle scopes I have noticed that the Bushnell Elite scopes atre quite a bit longer than most of the other brands.

RE: Couple of scope questions
 

An Adjustable Objective is completely unnecessary on a pistol scope as well. Parallax at pistol ranges out to 150 yards is so small as to be irrelevant when shooting at deer sided game. AO's are useful for varmint and target rifles where 1" of parallax at 200 yards is the difference between a hit or a miss on a groundhog. 1" of parallax at 100 yards on a deer is meaningless and won't even be noticed with a pistol unless you are a super good shot and shooting from a benched position. Even then it won't make enough difference to miss the vitals on a deer. What the AO does do is add length (as you mentioned), complexity, and cost to a scope that doesn't need the AO in the first place.

Once again, buy the Nikon, you won't regret it.

Mike