nikon prostaff
 

nikon prostaff:

Plan on purchasing this scope for me next rifle in a few weeks, will i be satisfied? any last things i should know? thanks

Read this great writeup
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=21176

I wouldn't get one. For not much more you can get some great scopes that seem to be a lot better from reading that review. I'd go for the Burris Fullfield II or the Vortex Diamondback instead.

Save your money a little while longer and pick up a Bushnell Elite 4200 for $240.

Koshkin is still around and is now recognized by some (other than himself) as an expert? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I guess his is as good as most. Durablity and reliability are the most important things in a hunting scope. Who cares if the image is clear if the guts shake loose and it causes you to miss or wound game?
The only important opinion is that of the guy who buys the scope for his rifle. A couple of brands have a reputation for failing at the wrong time, but this is not the case with the scope mentioned by the OP. If it looks good to you, buy it and be happy.

I have a nikon prostaff 3-9 on the muzzleloader and on a 6,5x55 and they are the clearest, most accurate optic I have ever shot. Definetly something that you should invest your money in!:fighting0007:
BigBuck95:biggrin:

I would not waste my money on a Prostaff. Additionally, Ilya (Koshkin) is VERY knowledgeable on all things optic. I'd trust him and John B. on recommendations without hesitation.

While I agree it holding up is the most important thing, clarity is very important also. A guy I hunt with was sitting in his stand this last season and right as the sun was going down the field filled up with 6-8 deer. He could see them just fine but when he put his scope up he couldn't see them enough to get a shot at them. With my Burris I can see after I can't see clearly with my eyes anymore. Like when the edges of the fields start looking dark and I can't see them but I can see in the middle of the field I can still see the edges through the scope. This is a really nice thing to have when hunting. If I can get a scope that's a lot better clairity wise for not much more and has just as good of a reputation as holding up why wouldn't I get it?

It's kind of like comparing a Remington 770 to a Savage 110 or Marlin XL-7. The 770's work but they aren't good guns. They feel super cheap and if you break parts expect to replace the gun. If you wear the barrel out you get a new gun since you can't change barrels. However, does it work to hunt with? It sure does. Why though would you buy it when you could be a Savage or Marlin that would last a lifetime, if you have problems you could replace the parts, and is more accurate and a better gun to start with?


If it was a $300 price difference between the scopes that would be one thing but it's not. Seems like people buy stuff like this that while it's decent isn't the best then they want to try to talk everyone else into buying it because they did even if they can get something better.

He gave his opinions, but did only limited testing for use as a hunting scope. These were borrowed scopes, so he did nothing to determine the durability of the products.
He based his opinions on his testing of one sample scope from each manufacturer. If he had used enough test items to give any stastical validity it would certainly have had more value. His comments about the rough spots in the Burris product may have been a one in ten thousand problem, or they may be a one in ten problem (does one tall person in Ohio mean that all people in Ohio are tall?).
His article is fine, but his testing methods do not produce meaningful results - just his opinion.
I am getting off topic, which does not really help the OP. Sorry about that.

What seems to be everyones issue with the Prostaffs???
They are THE best optic I have shot. To each his own......:spam:
BigBuck95:sign0018:

Points well taken Big Uncle, however, opinions from knowledgeable, trained people are better (IMO) than from everyday Joe Public. That said, buy and use whatever you like...that's what I do.

He didn't test the durability too much. However, there are many people that have been using these for quite a while. The other scopes don't seem to have issues holding up. So since they both hold up why would you choose one where the clarity is clearly not there in the Prostaff compared to others? Nor is it near as good in low light situations. I'm not saying the Prostaff is bad and wont hold up. There are just a lot better options that hold up fine too and are quite a bit clearer. So why not get one of those? That's what I'm getting at. Not saying the Prostaff's don't hold up. I personally like clear scopes and if I know both options will hold up I'm going to go with the one that is a lot clearer for not much more money.

If you wanna take tire kickers opinions thats fine. However if you want opinions of real world Pro Staff users I will offer mine. I have been using them almost exclusively for the last 10 years of gun hunting and after nearly 100 dead deer in all different kinds of light, distance, weather conditions and a great deal of abuse I can tell you I have had ZERO issues... yes ZERO!! For the record I also have Leupolds, Burris (without a doubt the lousiest customer service I have ever encountered), Bushnell, Redfields, Tascos, Simmons and several other Nikons.


They are an awesome scope for the money. Very clear very durable and one helluva good value. Some people race magazine reviews and some people race em themselves and draw their own conclusions. Try one out for yourself an draw your own conclusions.. you never know what the agendas are of some of the so-called experts. Be wary also of people that have NEVER used them and go strictly off heresy and "expert" internet or magazine and then argue the real world users of the product.

This 'real world' Pro Staff user has beat and banged his pro staff against trees and the ground, dirt, rain, sleet, mud, tree bark and dust from trees and all the other little nitty gritties....Hasn't faltered yet. Might die in September when I shoot it again, but not as of yet.

No one is saying the Prostaff's aren't durable. I haven't read that any. I will also point out that I haven't seen many complaints about Burris not being durable either. So I'd go with the one that offers better clarity, better in low light, and better features like better adjustments that you can turn with your fingers out in the field instead of having to have a screw driver or coin. If you look into that Burris is the clear winner for not much more. Both are durable so I doubt you'd have a problem with that with either one. If I really wanted a Nikon I'd step up and get the Nikon Team Primo's.

The posts on here from Prostaff users seem to be saying theirs is durable and great because it holds up. How many of you have actually owned other scopes like a Burris or Vortex and can honestly say the Prostaff is clearer? Nothing I've ever read or seen has indicated that the Prostaff is clearer or better in low light than a Fullfield II.

i put a 2x7 prostaff on my triumph and i'm very happy with it

I got one question for you hometheaterman. How many Nikon scopes.. Pro Staff or others have you owned or do you currently own? Ive got Vx-iii's, fullfield 2's, vx 1's..etc... Have you ever even used one? LoL As far as clarity.. the Burris is close on clarity....but durability and customer service make it a cabinet queen for me.

I don't own any Nikons but I do have friend that use them so it's not like I've never looked through one. I personally have Leupold VX-I's and Fullfield II's so can personally compare those two from using them. Nikon makes great scopes but I don't and wont own a Prostaff. If I'm set on Nikon I'd go ahead and just get the Team Primo's one that's a lot better scope. Any reviews out there you guys know of that actually like the Prostaff over the others mentioned? I haven't seen any but not saying they aren't there.

As for the VX-I compared to the Fullfield II. It's like night and day difference. Leupold's customer service is the only thing they have going for them with that scope. However, when you have to keep sending them in shipping adds up. I've never had an issue with my Burris so I can't comment on how their customer service is but I hear it's not the best.

In all honesty I don't want to have to use the customer service. This is the 3rd time right now that I'm having to use Leupolds customer service for VX-I's and I've only owned 2 of them. I wont buy another unless I get a super deal like I did on this last one.

The Leupolds don't seem to hold up. Nor are they any clearer as far as I can tell than the $30 Tasco's you can get at Walmart. However, the Burris is a lot clearer and seems to hold up great.

Now that doesn't pertain to the Prostaff. I was just commenting on those since you asked if I owned either.

Honestly, if you can't spend any extra the Prostaff is probably fine. However, I like clear scopes as well as ones that work so I'd spend the little bit extra for a Burris, Vortex, or Nikon Team Primo's all of which are better than a Prostaff. The Prostaff is the bottom of the line Nikon. It's not bad there just are ones that are a lot better.

If I bought a rifle with a Prostaff I certainly wouldn't throw it away. I just don't get why you guys think it's so great when you can buy one a lot better for not much more?

Never used a Burris. Can't comment on that. When I bought the Pro Staff, I was prepared to buy a Loupy.....walked outsite with a Sightron *spell check*, Leupold, and couple of Nikons...Seeing that they all have great warrenties and customer service providing something went wrong internally, I went with the clearest option.....minus the obvious winner Swarovski....needed to collect a few more cans for that one :D....Next scope for next rifle will probably be a Buckmaster Series or Monarch Series......HOWEVER.........those 56mm objective Leupolds are oh so tempting....but would probably turn me into a 10-15min after shooting light poacher lol.

A healthy philosophy and excellent advice.

Again.. thats your unverifiable, inexperienced opinion.



Now Im sure if I ask for people's opinions on something Im gonna want real users opinions. Not people who have to ask how to even mount a scope and have never even used the item in question.

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.

I've got a new CZ 527 in .223 Rem coming in.While looking around I considered the Nikon Pro Staff 2-7 however after a little diggin I came across the new Redfield Revolution 2-7 as another possibility.The price is the same as the Nikon but I think it has the edge.Redfield is now back in the USA being made in Oregon by Leupold.You should consider these as well.Being new there arent near as many reviews to be found compared to the Nikon but here's a link to a review from folks who's opinions (YMMV) I trust-
http://www.chuckhawks.com/redfield_r...on_4-12x40.htm

Bernie,

Boy you are going to get an ear full posting information from Chuck Hawks website !


BTW - I like the site myself.

I like the prostaff but i love the buckmasters. I have 2 3x9x40s and they have been around quiye awhile. The only glass ive seen that was noticeably better was a swaro, that being said who has 2600 for a scope?