Nikon vs Leupold


PDA






AirplaneDoc
December 22, 2007, 03:00 PM
Looking for a new scope for my AR for paper punching, maybe a little vermin punching as well. Holding things equal other than price, how do optics compare between Nikon and Leupold? Is a Leupold enough better to command the higher price?

Looking at the 5-700 range.

Thx

If you enjoyed reading about "Nikon vs Leupold" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lone_Gunman
December 22, 2007, 03:05 PM
I have both. Both are very good scopes. I believe Nikon is a better value for the money. I own more Leupolds than Nikons, but its because I was able to find what I wanted quicker if I got a Leupold.

AirplaneDoc
December 22, 2007, 03:08 PM
Thanks, That is exactly the kind of info I am looking for

justice4all
December 22, 2007, 03:11 PM
Leupold optics are excellent. Once I started buying them, I stopped buying anything else.

Ratshooter
December 22, 2007, 03:17 PM
I only have the low end versions of each. I have a 2x7 and 2 3x9 leupold VX1s. In the Nikon brand i have 2 4x and a 3x9 in the Pro Staff series.

The Leupold has a bigger field of vision. The Nikons are bright and seem very rugged. The Nikons were cheaper. I like both. Both are far better than the cheap, short eye relief scopes i have bought in the past. Both were a step up for me. I have bought expensive rifles and stopped at a good scope. Those days are gone.

I have a Burris fullfield 3x9 i like also.

I have compared my Leupold 3x9 side by side with my buddies 3x10 VX111 and can't tell a nickles worth of difference. This was while sitting on a deer stand in field conditions. All Leupolds have the same lifetime warranty.

Reyn
December 22, 2007, 04:23 PM
At the top of each's line the difference optically is so close you will have people debate it til the end of time.

The part that makes Leupold so great has been their warranty.

rbernie
December 22, 2007, 04:31 PM
Within the same price range, the Nikon will have slightly better optics but the Leupold will be made of much sterner stuff; thicker bodies, better anodizing, and so forth.

Legionnaire
December 22, 2007, 04:46 PM
I have both; can't go wrong with either; I prefer the Leupolds.

Lone_Gunman
December 22, 2007, 06:10 PM
The part that makes Leupold so great has been their warranty.

Thats a good point, but I have never had to use a warranty with a Leupold or Nikon.

AirplaneDoc
December 22, 2007, 06:49 PM
Nikon lists lifetime warranty on some of their scopes, is it hit or miss?

CZ223
December 23, 2007, 12:34 AM
I also have one Nikon Monarch 6.5x20. The Nikon is by far the brightest clearest scope I own. The only downside to it is that the crosshairs are so fine that when the sun hits it just rigth they will wash out.

AtticusThraxx
December 23, 2007, 10:52 AM
I have the same Nikon, CZ and the screw on sun shade that came with it helps alot with washout at least where I shoot. Dang nice scopes for the $$$!

jeepmor
December 23, 2007, 11:19 AM
I considered them both pretty hard last year and time spent at the SW optics counter had the Leupolds and Nikons neck and neck in quality and clarity, with Nikon having a slight price advantage when comparing the equivalent models. You didn't get better optics until you entered into the scopes that run $800 plus each like the Swarovski, Zeiss and so forth.

I have a Leupold on my hunting rifle. Nikon has the new BDC (bullet drop compensator) that takes a lot of guess work out of long range shots.

Kimber1911_06238
December 23, 2007, 11:34 AM
I prefer leupolds, but i also have a nikon and think it's a great scope.

PAPACHUCK
December 23, 2007, 12:04 PM
The Nikon scopes are equal to the Leopold is all aspects, minus low-light situations, where Leopold holds a slight advantage. For morning/evening hunters, I'd say get the Leopold. For target shooting, or hunting varmits, same a few bucks and buy the Nikon.

rundm
December 23, 2007, 05:19 PM
Both are good scopes. Light transmission is a little better on the nikon if you look at the specs. Leupold is around 92-93% except for the LPS which is about as good as you can get and also has a price like some of the best european brands. Nikon is about 95.5-96%. Can most people tell the diff, probably not? I have both. Never needed to use the warranty either. Have heard many stories about Nikons customer service not being all that great. Like I said, I have never needed to use it to find out. RG

rbernie
December 23, 2007, 06:02 PM
The Nikon scopes are equal to the Leopold is all aspects, minus low-light situationsActually, the Nikon bodies are made of much thinner alloys (and dent a lot more easily as a result). The Nikon anodizing is far thinner, and the Nikon will show ring marks and scratches under circumstances where a Leupold would not. The Nikon power ring will be much stiffer and harder to use.

But the Nikon will likely have better glass/coatings.

AirplaneDoc
December 24, 2007, 11:48 AM
Thanks for the imput, there is one of each NIB comming up at a auction soon, so I will see what happens there, If I can get a great deal, I might go for one of them. otherwise I will be going shopping soon. I haven't bought yet so keep posting your thouhts.

THX

AD

tblt
December 24, 2007, 11:50 AM
I have bothin 3-9.I like the nikon better it is clearer.

xringer3
December 24, 2007, 01:12 PM
I have a leupold VXIII and a Nikon Pro Staff. The nikon seems to have more clarity and holds a zero better. That surprised me as the cost difference was about 300.00! I'll stick to the Nikon for further purchases for my rifles.

Mr White
December 24, 2007, 01:19 PM
My Nikon 4-14 Buckmaster cost about as much as a Leupold VXI but IMO is equal in performance to a VXII.

geojap
December 24, 2007, 01:45 PM
I was considering scopes recently. One that you will want to check out is Sightron. I got a Sightron SII Big Sky model, which is equivalent to Leupold VX-III glass. The Sightron is a well-made and sturdy scope, available for less scratch than a Leupold. It is also made in Japan, not the Philippines or China. Don't get me wrong, I love Leupolds (I still have one in my closet), but the Sightron was a better buy.

eliphalet
December 24, 2007, 01:51 PM
Leupold's VXII's or better can have he reticle changed at any time for $50, will Nikon?

Had couple of pairs of Nikon Binoculars. In a sometimes treated rough hunting environment they kinda fell apart. They were good bino's for the price so was gonna get another pair but ended up with Leupold's instead. They are at the very least as good as the Nikon's and warranted forever. So far they are fine but if they do fail to function from hard wear I know the fix is free.

Time will tell on the scope warranty's. We've sent in a 40 year old Leupold that was fixed free, have others at least that old that are still as good as new. No Nikon's on any gun so no idea how they do as a company for customer service, Just know for sure once you have a Leupold on your rifle it is good forever or fixed free.

I would use either but if buying new would choose the Leupold.

rbernie
December 24, 2007, 01:57 PM
The Sightron is a well-made and sturdy scope, available for less scratch than a Leupold. It is also made in Japan, not the Philippines or China. Don't get me wrong, I love Leupolds (I still have one in my closet), but the Sightron was a better buy.
Word.

I have at least a dozen Sightron SII's on rifles that I count on, because they are the best bang-for-the-buck in moderately-priced optics. Having said that, it should be noted that Sightrons finish simply isn't as durable as Leupolds.

If you enjoyed reading about "Nikon vs Leupold" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!