[TheStupid]

I am looking for a scope to mount on my 700P LTR.

I kind of narrowed it down to these two:

Nikon Monarch Matte BDC 6.5-20x44 6576
Bushnell 4-16 x 40mm 42-4164M

The only difference seems to be the "exit pupil". The Nikon only has 2.2 mm while Bushnell has 10@4x and 25@16x

So, ignore the magnification, which one is better? Prices are the same.

[TheStupid]

OK, add this one too. Better eye relief. How come Leupold has no data on "exit pupil"?

Leupold 4-12x40 VX-II Riflescope LEU56950

[ReadyontheRight]

Leupold all the way.

I have a pair of Nikon binocs that I REALLY like, so I would personally go with Nikon over Bushnell for the same price.

[.41Dave]

Go with the Bushnell Elite 4200 scope. They have excellent glass, plus the rainguard is sweet if you ever have to shoot in bad weather. Unfortunately I cannot recommend Leupold. Leupolds are decent, rugged scopes, but dollar for dollar, the quality of the glass is just not as good as other brands. Optical quality is very important, especially with the high magnification range you have chosen and the Bushnell will deliver more than the Leupold.

As for exit pupil, that is simply a matter of dividing the objective diameter by the magnification range. The exit pupil will be higher at low magnification and lower at high magnification. This is why the view on high magnification appears dimmer than on lower magnification. The human eye can only use 7mm of exit pupil at the most (and for many people it is less) though, so anything higher than that doesn't matter.

[rbernie]

The eye relief on the Leupold 4x-12x design (VXII or VXIII, AO or not) changes by a dramatic amount as you move thru the zoom range. It's very disconcerting, and it means that you're constantly having to reposition your head to adjust to the variable eye relief. As much as I like the VXII and VXII lines in general, I'd pass on any Leupold in 4x-12x.

The exit pupil for the Bushnell is 2.5 @ full mag - not 25. It's not much better than the Nikon, and not worth sweatin' one way or another (IMO).

I'd get the one that has the most consistant eye relief and has dimensions most suited to mounting on the rifle. Barring any clear winners there, it comes down to personal preference.

The Nikon BDC is a kinda neat thing, and that would probably sway me towards the Nikon (presuming that I was willing to live with a low end as high as 6.5x, which IMO is kinda high).....

[TheStupid]

Is the eye relief important? I am drawn to the Leupold by it's big eye relief, 4.7 - 3.7 inches compared to Bushnell and Nikon's 3.5

[.41Dave]

3.5" of eye relief is plenty. One of the most basic aspects of accuracy is consistency. I would prefer a consistent 3.5" of eye relief to having to reposition my head depending on the magnification.

[fastbike]

The Nikon will be brighter in any given light than either the Leupold or the Bushnell.

[Gun Geezer]

Nikon Monarch is an awesome scope. Brighter, IMHO, than Leupold. I just did a side by side taste test on them at Bass Pro and I chose the Nikon.

[TheStupid]

I finally settled on Nikon. Thank you guys so much.

[Risasi]

:)

Good to hear. I have a couple 2.5-8X Nikon's I love. They are LER, but are good even at dusk.

[45crittergitter]

Both the Bushnell 4200 and Nikon Monarch provide 95% light transmission.