Scope test
04-19-2013, 04:06 PM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oh
Posts: 193
Scope test
I just got back from Bass Pro doing a test on two scopes, the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10 x 42 vs the Burris 3-9x40 E1. I wanted to see the new C4 reticle but they didn’t have them yet. The Nikon should have had the advantage with the larger main lens. I want to set up a new rifle and had the Nikon Monarch 3-12x42 as my top choice. After comparing the two scopes mentioned having both scopes set to 9 on magnification, I couldn’t believe what I saw. The Burris was noticeably brighter looking at several different objects dark and light and it was just as clear. The sales person was a Nikon person and made that clear before we did the test. I asked him to look and compare and he couldn’t believe it and agreed the Burris was brighter. The Nikon was my first choice but now I am not sure. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
04-20-2013, 03:30 AM
#3
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oh
Posts: 193
If someone has the time I would like them to do the same test. I went in knowing the Nikon was brighter and was wrong. I haven't heard anyone say they held both side by side just what they say should be considered in a purchase. I know the Burris is durable and accurate I have had one for years. I thought it would be an upgrade, but is it.
04-20-2013, 10:48 AM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Clermont Florida U.S.
Posts: 4,970
I've always preferred Burris to Nikon. Guess the Nikon's and my eyesight just don't peacefully co-exist. That said, testing any scopes inside a building can yield "interesting" results. I've always tried to have an employee accompany me outside to check / test there. I do realize that some vendors (i.e. Bass Pro) likely would not comply with that wish...that's why they don't get my $.
04-22-2013, 05:59 AM
#6
Just about every scope over $100 is fully multi-coated. When you consider that each manufacturer has its own set of coatings with different properties, the term loses a lot of its meaning.
04-22-2013, 02:53 PM
#7
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oh
Posts: 193
06-08-2013, 12:12 PM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,186
I was disspaointed with the two Nikon Monarch scopes that I obtained. These were mounted on used rifles that I bought. I have their top end "Venturer" binoculars and these are excellent.
I did a semi-scientific test of these two along side scopes costing far more, about the same price and a couple of scopes that I had that MSRP's for about $200 less. My test was viewing into the woods behind my house as the sun set. The Monarch's were one the first to go "dark". The clarity of the edge to edge image, the detail and contrast .... just were not there well before other comparible priced scopes were still very clear .... Leupold Vari-X III, Ziess Conquest, B&L 4200 and a Kahles.
They did not, and I did not expect them to, compare at all with the top end Swarovski and Ziess scopes that I have. These and the B&L 4200 were these last 3 to "go".
I did a semi-scientific test of these two along side scopes costing far more, about the same price and a couple of scopes that I had that MSRP's for about $200 less. My test was viewing into the woods behind my house as the sun set. The Monarch's were one the first to go "dark". The clarity of the edge to edge image, the detail and contrast .... just were not there well before other comparible priced scopes were still very clear .... Leupold Vari-X III, Ziess Conquest, B&L 4200 and a Kahles.
They did not, and I did not expect them to, compare at all with the top end Swarovski and Ziess scopes that I have. These and the B&L 4200 were these last 3 to "go".