| |
 |
|
| Hobby Forum Index » Guns » Nikon vs. Leupold...Opinions... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Allan Matthews... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
How does the Nikon Buckmaster series compare with the Leupold VXII
series? Any one who has compared them?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brigadier... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 8:24 pm, Allan Matthews <amatthe... at (no spam) stny.rr.com> wrote:
Let's get ready to rummmbllllee
Man, what a can of worms!
OK, seriously. When my father passed away a little over a year ago,
he left several dozen rifles with MANY leupold VXII and VXIII scopes,
Nikons (Including 2 Buckmasters with side focus), Bushnells and
Burris. I tried them all out and all were great shooters (he wouldn't
keep a rifle that wasn't).
Remember, each manufacturere has several 'lines' of scopes of various
quality and precision. A top of the line Bushnell is going to out
perform a bottom of the line Nikon or Leupold, so one should be sure
to compare apples to apples when looking (as you did in your question
above).
IMHO
The Nikons (Buckmaster) were clearer and sharper than the NEWER
Leupolds (VXII). There was a Leupold 4x from the 1980s that was much
sharper than the new ones. The Bushnells were fine scopes, but
(again, IMHO) were not of the same caliber, but I have several still
mounted on rifles and they are very close. Finally, the Burris
(fullfield II) are all (4 of them) at least as sharp as the Nikons and
may surpass them under some conditions (hazy dusk/dawn, etc.)
That said, the differences are so slight in many instances that unless
you held them side by side, you may not notice it.
I'm sure this is as clear as mud, but just my personal experience.
Regards,
Brid.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| M.C. Williams... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Most medium priced scopes look pretty good, the trouble I've had is
with adjustments. You know- go up 4 clicks and nothing happens, go up 1
more and it goes up 2 inches and right one.
I've had this with Leupold, Nikon and Burris, I can't afford those
expensive German scopes so I can't talk about them.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
# How does the Nikon Buckmaster series compare with the Leupold VXII
# series?
If I didn't have all the Leupold scopes I need I'd be willing to give
a similarly priced Nikon a try, especially their fixed power 4x40mm.
The Buckmaster line seems priced closer to the Leupold Rifleman or VX-
I series though. I'd certainly consider a Nikon before I try another
Burris. I've managed to break a couple Burris scopes over the years
and I find their eye relief super critical. They were replaced with
Leupolds which don't break (but are backed by an awesome service dept)
and have a generous range of eye relief. Regardless the MSRP you do
get what you actually pay for. Good hunting!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Long Ranger... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
--
Every individual or national degeneration is immediately revealed by a
directly proportional degradation in language.
Joseph-Marie de Maistre
"Allan Matthews" <amatthews2 at (no spam) stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hc5ejo$vrn$1 at (no spam) news.albasani.net...
I have a Nikon Monarch, which I realize is not the same as a Buckmaster. I
agree with the previous post that the Nikon glass is better than any of the
three Leupolds I have. I continue to favor Leupold based mostly on their
customer service. It's fantastic.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 6:24 pm, Allan Matthews <amatthe... at (no spam) stny.rr.com> wrote:
# How does the Nikon Buckmaster series compare with the Leupold VXII
# series? Any one who has compared them?
#
The Nikons I've seen have had multi-piece tubes, I know that Leupold's
tubes are single-piece. More places to get leaks on the multi-piece
and every thread is a crack waiting to start. Nikon lens quality is
top of the line, though. I do know that if you've got a problem with
a Leupold, you can send it in and they'll do whatever it takes to make
it right. Know nothing about Nikon's customer support.
Stan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| penultimate... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 7:24 pm, Allan Matthews <amatthe... at (no spam) stny.rr.com> wrote:
You might search up my prior posts on the general topic of scopes
including these particular ones and read them in the context of the
thread in which they are found.
I too own a goodly quantity of scoped centerfire rifles, most suitable
for deer size and up, all with adequate quality scopes (Nikon,
Leupold, Burris, Bausch and Lomb [pre-Bushnell], and Weaver (oldie El
Paso and more recent) most with Leupolds. More importantly, I like to
horse-trade rifles and fiddle with them. Current inventory has culled
over time from better than 100 scoped center fire rifles, all
purchased used and all scoped when they came to me. I have never
knowingly sold a rifle with a scope that obviously limited the rifle's
accuracy off a bench and in consequence have accumulated a goodly box
of junk (the source of inaccuracy and uneconomically serviceable)
scopes and replaced them with new scopes. My test with a rifle that
shoots not so well with plain old factory rounds is to swap in the old
El Paso Weaver (not the brightest, sharpest scope and not one for the
rain, but tough and reliable as hell!). You would be surprised how
often groups immediately shrink to respectable size with the old
Weaver. Given that for a rifle I retain, I often try to match the
vintage of a quality scope to vintage of a rifle, as a rule I do not
trade off scopes that I particularly like. This means over time I
have come to own more Leupolds and have let some very expensive
European optics go out the door completely without regret. And, as a
general observation, I would suggest that you don't really know how
good a scope is until it is 30 years old and requires service after
you drop the rifle on a rock.
That said, in contrast to a number of choices on the market, I think
the Buckmaster is an adequate scope (not "junk" at any model line
price-point) that you should expect to hold up and with a warrantee
that is probably as good as it says it is. I currently own one. As a
rule, any product marketed by Nikon will be optically sound and
competently engineered. But you should be aware that Nikon designs
and produces multiple product lines, each targeted at different market
price points. The more expensive lines are more indeed more expensive
to build, meaning higher quality components and processes and the less
expensive lines are designed to be less expensive, generally meaning
the converse. Buckmaster is not Nikon's best line and this is not its
purpose. I own several UCC line scopes that are a bit optically
better. UCC line Nikons are probably on purely optical (meaning
sharpness and to a lesser degree, brightness) grounds about on a par
with a Leupold VXIII.
Historically, and noting that this may be changing, Leupold has
DESIGNED only one quality level but built several model lines. The
difference has been that the most expensive line is generally the most
recently designed line which takes full advantage of the latest
technology advances. Thus, at Leupold, as an example, the VX, VX-II,
and VX-III were each Leupold's latest, greatest, and consequently,
"best" products with prior model lines differing in being a "previous
years'" model. Here is an important point: in optics while
technology advance has made higher levels of optical performance a lot
less expensive to obtain, it has only slightly improved performance at
the top. If you don't think so, compare the view from my vintage 1957
(or so) Leupold 4x Mountaineer with a current generation scope. This
scope is still on my "go to" rifle that I have owned since age 11. I
further note that not long ago Leupold Warrantee service spiffed it up
for free when I sent it in for a 50 year check-up, noting that it did
not seem as "perfectly clear" as it once had!
Directly to your question, every scoped rifle I own that I have or
would pull out of the safe to hunt with has a Leupold scope. The
Nikons are on the fiddle-with at the range rifles, safe queens, and
trade rifles. This sort of happened on its own with me noticing it
after the fact. The reason is the Leupolds offer extended and
forgiving eye relief that I am convinced allows me to get on target
and shoot quicker from any position in the field. This is not
something you would necessarily notice if you shot mostly from a
bench. If hunting is your purpose, it is tough to recommend anything
as confidently as a Leupold. If you can't afford a Leupold (an lots
of people seem to have a mistaken view of how expensive they might
be), then this eye relief issues seems to have been understood in
Burris's recent Fullfield II at $75 less than a comparable Leupold.
If you wonder why, the parking lot a Leupold is probably about empty
during Oregon elk season. How many people at Nikon in Japan are avid
hunters? It's pretty near impossible to even own a firearm there!
At least with the specific Leupold models I own (4x, 6x, 2-7x and
several different 3-9X) eye-relief properties optimal to a hunter
getting off a quick shot seems to have been understood (and of
paramount design importance) to Leupold for at least 50 years.
Although Optics were not near as good, is was also understood 50 years
ago by Weaver and certainly by early Redfields and by Bausch and Lomb
models designed before Bushnell.
I see lots of comments to the effect of "clearer, sharper, brighter
than a Leupold " of "as clear as ..." in discussions of rifle scopes
with commenters referring to brands found in my junker box. Usually,
where there is any observational context, it is with reference to "in
the store" or "a target" at the range. Junk scopes are in fact
designed to put their best foot forward inside a store! You really
don't know squat about how good optics are until you test across a
variety of field conditions, which partly means the fringes of dawn
and dusk where the best optics give you maybe 2 to 3 minutes more
shooting light. And you really do not know about useful optical
quality until you try to shoot into a low sun at a target in shadow
with a little fine dust on the objective! As a hint, you don't see
nuttin through many of the scopes which seem "brighter than a Leupold"
in the big box store or at the range.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| pyotr filipivich... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Let the Record show that Brigadier <brigadeir at (no spam) yahoo.com> on or about
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:30:25 +0000 (UTC) did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.guns the following:
% A top of the line Bushnell is going to out
%perform a bottom of the line Nikon or Leupold, so one should be sure
%to compare apples to apples when looking (as you did in your question
%above).
I'd imagine a top of the line Bushnell is going to out perform a
bottom of the line Bushnell as well. "Of course it will be 'better'
than a comparable Brand X" that goes with the advertising budget.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| penultimate... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 10:22 pm, pyotr filipivich <ph... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:
Quote: ...
I find Brigadier's comment as written doubtful to say the least,
although I suppose you might get lucky and in this context wonder what
pyotr might be actually saying. For your consideration:
1. Bushnell brands and markets optical products at mid-market to low
price points sourced from a variety of Asian suppliers. It markets
rifle scopes under the Bushnell, Simmons, and Tasco names with several
product lines and continuously changing model line-up in in each.
This prior sentence is absolutely true and should immediately make you
nervous. Clearly "specifications" for the products it brands and
markets are at least approved by Bushnell but it sure is not clear to
me that Bushnell can claim much engineering level or optical design
responsibility for the riflescopes it sells. This does not make them
bad. But I sure don't think it makes them good.
In contrast, products from Nikon and Leupold are engineered, and
manufactured by Nikon and Leupold employees including the optical path
and lens designs. Yes. some lenses may be ground and polished by
suppliers on the outside. Obviously, Nikon manufacturing is done in
Japan and Asia. Most of Leupolds is still in Beaverton, Oregon. But
both these companies maintain total control of this process.
Does this matter? By my quick count at USPTO.gov Leupold has been
awarded 28 US patents related to RIFLE scopes and details of their
design since 2000. Bushnell has been been awarded 2, both related to
an antifog coating. You might expect that the better riflescope comes
from the company that actually innovates in riflescope design by
getting patents. 28:2 is a pretty big edge. This is, of course, all
the more interesting since Bushnell also owns the Tasco and Simmons
brands. For the record, I could find no US patents assigned to Tasco
or Simmons. Adding the even cheaper products from Simmons and Tasco,
Bushnell probably sells at least five scopes to Leupold's one - but
hardly shows any evidence of contributing to the art and science of
riflescope design.
Nikon as a huge company has too many issued patents over this period
to bother manually searching through them, though none came up with
"riflescope" as a keyword in patent title. This is, of course, my dig
at Nikon. The really understand "scope" and optics and are major
creative contributors in these general fields. But not many Japanese
under 80 have much experience with "rifle." If they did, I think I
their scopes would be a bit more forgiving in terms of eye relief.
2. Both Leupold and Nikon have multimillion dollar optical test and
measurement facilities on site in America. This one of the reasons
why both companies offer great and consistant out-the-door quality and
excellent customer service. In contrast to some suppliers, the
extraordinarily rare scope that goes to Leupold with a complaint of
parallax error comes back fixed. Does Bushnell have similar
capability? Ask them? Judging by my junk box, my guess is not. You
can arrange for an amazing plant tour at Leupold that includes an
incredibly impressive repair and requalification process. How about
Bushnell?
3. Bushnell, when it acquired Bausch and Lomb's consumer optics line
in roughly the early 1990's got an excellent rifle scope with long and
forgiving eye relief. At least in the early days, and probably using
components already on hand, this was branded as the "Elite 3200" and
for the first time gave Bushnell some modest credibility as offering
at that time a Leupold-peer product. Certainly IMO Bushnell had no
basis for such claim before hand.
But, absent evidence of internal capability to continue generating
equivalent state-of-the-art designs, it is unclear to me that Bushnell
controls an ability to continue offering a top-tier competitive
product. And, with its products manufactured outside, it is unclear
to me that they are able to assure the quality level possible at a
company with full internal assembly, test, and measurement
procedures. Quite frankly, though I have an opinion, I have no idea
whether or not the top of the line model from Bushnell currently
competes with Leupold. But why should I spend that much money on a
Bushnell when I can just buy a Leupold instead?
4. Let us talk warrantee. And believe me, talk is cheap because in
Riflescopes history teaches that you should ask whether the "lifetime"
in question is yours or the scope companies. Both Nikon and Leupold
offer a warrantee backed by a business with a solid and long history
and reputation honoring their commitments. I don't know how good a
job Bushnell has been honoring warrantees on their own named
products. But I know they refused to honor Tasco warrantees when they
bought Tasco after its most recent bankruptsy and think I am correct
in recalling they refused to honor pre-existing warrantees for Simmons
and B&L scopes. PLEASE, SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF THIS IMPRESSION RE
BUSHNELL AND SIMMONS/B&L WARANTEES BASED ON LINGERING MEMORY IS
WRONG.
The issue for me re. Bushnell isn't whether or not their "best" scope
is anywhere near as good as a Leupold or Nikon. It is that if they
truly understand the requirements that must be met to achieve an
excellent scope, how on earth can they offer some of the products they
do?
As a contrasting example, Nikon is a large consumer oriented company
with Asian plants fully able to compete on cost in the world market.
But Nikon does not offer a sub $100 rifle scope. They can probably
build one which is at least as good as any such product bearing one of
the Bushnell Holding Company product names at the same or better
quality level at the same or a lower cost. So why isn't Nikon taking
on Bushnell?
The obvious answer is simply that Nikon knows that even though such a
product would sell, especially if advertised and especially at the
beginning, its performance would fall short of the standards expected
of a reliably useful product. Nikon does not willingly associate its
name with products that it thinks are less than reliably useful. At
least so far, Leupold has understood the same thing and I certainly am
among those that hope they continue to ignore the junk market.
In a riflescope, this idea of a reliably useful product is an
important one. Yes, as some suggest in the scope you do for the most
part indeed get what you pay for. But what you use is not the scope,
but the rifle with a scope in place of iron sights. Getting less than
reliable utility is worse than not having a scope at all!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| clarkmagnuson at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
For a while I have been buying VX1 to Mk IV Leupold scopes and
travelite to Monarch Nikon binoculars.
I consider both to be quality brands.
But in 2009 I have been buying IOR tactical scopes and Minox HG
binoculars.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Omelet... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hd4s92$cae$1 at (no spam) news.albasani.net>,
"clarkmagnuson at (no spam) gmail.com" <clarkmagnuson at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
# For a while I have been buying VX1 to Mk IV Leupold scopes and
# travelite to Monarch Nikon binoculars.
# I consider both to be quality brands.
#
# But in 2009 I have been buying IOR tactical scopes and Minox HG
# binoculars.
#
Bushnell is made by Leupold...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Scott... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Omelet" <ompomelet at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hd5b4r$fg9$1 at (no spam) news.albasani.net...
# Bushnell is made by Leupold...
I hope you don't really believe that....
Good shooting,
desmobob
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Omelet... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hd7mp1$184$1 at (no spam) news.albasani.net>,
"Robert Scott" <desmobob at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
# "Omelet" <ompomelet at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
# news:hd5b4r$fg9$1 at (no spam) news.albasani.net...
#
# # Bushnell is made by Leupold...
#
#
# I hope you don't really believe that....
#
#
# Good shooting,
# desmobob
#
Last I read, Leupold bought out Bushnell, but admit I was unable to find
that cite.
--
Peace! Om
"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein
Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
recfoodrecipes at (no spam) yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: recfoodrecipes-subscribe at (no spam) yahoogroups.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:29 am
|
|