Nikon scope quality


January 15, 2003, 10:58 PM
I thought I was in the market for a "tactical" scope but realized that a standard model would do just fine. I am on a limited budget
and am considering a Nikon, either a Buckmaster or a Monarch. What is the overall quality of these scopes compared to others in their price range? I want something in the neighborhood of a 3.5-12x. How consistent are the adjustments, how durable are they?
I am upgrading from a Springfield fixed 6.

If you enjoyed reading about "Nikon scope quality" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Swamp Yankee
January 16, 2003, 09:34 AM
Top Notch.

Definately as good as or better than other scopes in the same price range. Optics are exceptional. I have a 4.5-14X40 Buckmaster and a couple of 6.5-20X44 Monarchs. All have served me well. I have not had any problems what so ever.
Nikon's warranty is lifetime and transferable. Since I've never had any problems I can not comment on their customer service.
The only issue I have, and it's not a biggy, is the reticle on the Buckmaster seems a bit on the heavy side for my taste, though it has not prevented me from shooting great groups using the Remington 700 VSS it's mounted on.
Take Care

January 16, 2003, 10:37 AM
I would agree. Have used the 6.5-20x44 Monarch and it is a great scope.

January 16, 2003, 10:58 AM
Great scopes!!

Bottom Gun
January 16, 2003, 11:51 AM
Excellent scopes. I'm not familiar with the Buckmaster series, but the Monarchs and the older Nikons are great values for the money.

January 17, 2003, 08:37 AM
I have experience with both the fixed and variable power Buckmaster scopes, and rate them highly. They compare favorably to the comparable Burris and Leupold models.

January 17, 2003, 09:48 AM
I don't have a lot of experience with Nikons. I have owned two 3-9x. The second one was an older Monarch that came with an AR-15 mount and rings. Bought the mount, rings and scope for $125 and sold the scope for $180. That resale says something. The first one was a 'pre-Monarch' that I bought used - my first good scope. I sold it to buy some gun, don't even remember which one. That older Nikon was startling by how crisp it was. I was always aware I was looking through glass but man, I really wish I hadn't sold that on.

I've looked through a couple others, both Monarchs. They seem to be a strong solid quality product and they should always make good on any warranty issues. No reason to recommend against Nikons. In the 'lower priced, high end' optics, I'm really impressed with the Weaver Grand Slams. I have two 3-10s and they are both really bright. Not quite Swarovski-bright but bright enough to hunt by moonlight with snow on the ground. My next planned scope purchase will be a 6-20x Grand Slam for my 7mm Magnum.

Or maybe a PU sniper scope.

January 20, 2003, 10:27 PM
I own two Nikon monarch scopes and love them. They are real clear and do real well under low light conditions.

Bottom Gun
January 21, 2003, 12:10 AM
I had a little extra time this weekend so I put one of my Nikons side by side with my Leupold Vari-X-II and compared them. Both are 3-9 x 40.
Two friends, both long time shooters, compared the two scopes and gave their opinions as well.

The Nikon beat the Leupold hands down. The Nikon was much brighter and the images appeared sharper though it.

All three of us agreed the Nikon was the better scope.
Another plus is Nikons come with lens caps, Leupolds don't.

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