Nikon prostaff scope experiences?

Welcome to THR
In my experience Nikon offers very good glass for the money. I have a 3x9 on an AR-15(223) that has worked well. 12 power is enough for 500 yards.

It will handle recoil fine. To my eyes the glass on ProStaffs isn't as good as some other scopes in the same price range such as Burris Fullfield, Minox ZV and Vortex Diamondback. You've got a $1,000.00 rifle and are considering a $200.00 scope for it. If you want to utilize the potential of the rifle then a nicer scope is required, IMO.

Your weapon is no better than the sights or optics you have to aquire the target with. Dont scrimp on either one if you must depend on them.
I personally havent heard anyone complain who had a wide clear feild of view about quick target aqusition being a problem,it is key to make the shot after all.

Where in Texas are you located?

The Prostaff, or a Vortex Diamondback, or Bushnell Legend Ultra will work. It can always be moved to another rifle later if you decide to upgrade.

I own a Nikon Prostaff and Prostaff 5. Both scopes are good choices for the money. I agree that saving a little and buying a better scope is probably best. If that is not possible though, you will not be disappointed with a Prostaff. Nikon also has BDC days once or twice a year that can save you a little bit of money.

The prostaff will get you started no problem. I have a 4-12x40 on my Abolt 7mm, and while i dont shoot at actual targets of for groups, ive had little problem resolving and hitting head size or larger rocks out past 400yds (limits of my RF on that size target), once I figure out the hold.

I also have 4 other prostaffs that are solid scopes.

One scope you may want to take a look at is the Bushnell Ultra HD 4.5-14x44.
Ive got one on my new .250AI, and while i havent shot it at range yet, Ive played with it enough to be of the opinion that at least in terms of optics it is, to my eye, superior to the prostaff line.
I have a smaller UltraHD on my .458 socom and its survived fine for a couple hundred rounds now, and that thing jostles you pretty good.

Another is the Primary Arms 4-14x44.
I dont own one, my brother in law has one that ive played with some, for budget optics I think these are quite good also.

The UltraHds made in china, and im not sure about the PA, if thats a concern.

I did my own home work......... I like what I saw.............I bought one.

I have a couple prostaffs and a couple monarchs. Would I rather have only Nightforce or Schmidt & Bender? Sure, but most of my rifles can't justify the price tag. I like nikon. Clear, affordable. Your scope will be able to do 500 yards just fine. As far as handling recoil? I have a prostaff that's been on a .300 win mag for years. No issues.

i own 2 3-9-40 and 1 2-7-32. they are good scopes for the average hunter/shooter but when i went with a long range 223rem scope i went vortex 6-18-44. clearer glass IMO. if i were you id save up for a vortex diamondback.

The Pro-staff model Nikon has a reputation for value. Most people are quite happy with what you get for your money.

As far as more scope for your rifle ? Who's to say what's right ? If it works for you and you are happy that is what matters. I have a Redfield Revolution on a Win M70. That is not a high end scope either but it works for me for now. The Nikon you ask about will work for 500 yards if you are capable. Many people use 12x at 500.


-Jeff

I have the Prostaff 4-12 x 40, and it is fine for the money. It is a second focal plane scope, not first focal plane if that matters to you.

Russellc

I agree... Nikon makes an excellent scope for the money. I'm very pleased with mine.

There is no upper limit to how much you can spend on a scope, but if I truly needed a better scope than the Prostaff I'd be prepared to spend 4x as much. $700 at least. Less than that, and you are not going to enjoy significantly more in the way of quality.

v35 said:

I agree... Nikon makes an excellent scope for the money. I'm very pleased with mine.

There is no upper limit to how much you can spend on a scope, but if I truly needed a better scope than the Prostaff I'd be prepared to spend 4x as much. $700 at least. Less than that, and you are not going to enjoy significantly more in the way of quality.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree. You can purchase a number of scopes in the $300-$400 range that are considerably better than a ProStaff.

cdb1 said:

I totally disagree. You can purchase a number of scopes in the $300-$400 range that are considerably better than a ProStaff.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? I don't want to overpay any more than the next guy. I evaluated a bunch of scopes before deciding upon the Prostaff, but I could perceive no discernible increase in optical quality until I got to a considerably higher price range.

So... suggestions?

9x19expert said:

Ya I definitely see my mistake now, I blew my money on the rifle and didn't leave much for the optic.

Click to expand...

I don't think you made a mistake. The Nikon will serve you well, until (or if) you want and can afford something better.
Then, it will give you a leg up on your next project.
Welcome to the forum BTW.

v35 said:

Care to elaborate? I don't want to overpay any more than the next guy. I evaluated a bunch of scopes before deciding upon the Prostaff, but I could perceive no discernible increase in optical quality until I got to a considerably higher price range.

So... suggestions?

Click to expand...

I would imagine you are the exception. A short list for me would be:
VX-2, VX-3, MeoPro, Bushnell Elite 3500 and 4500, Minox ZV 3, Sightron Big Sky and Zeiss Terra, Burris C4 and Cabela's Euro Instinct. I would imagine quite a few people feel you can get a much better scope than a Prostaff for twice what a ProStaff cost. You mentioned spending four times as much to get an appreciably better scope. It may work for you but not for most people.

And Weaver Grand Slam.

Haven't cared for the glass for cost, bought one sight unseen online(prostaff). Thought it was good. 300wm broke it(40 rds?). Nikons cs drove me away forever. Since then only scope I've looked through that was a Nikon and looked decent was a 15 or so year old monarch.

I don't care for their bdc. I think there much better deals out there. Used leupolds from 80-150$, haven't had a leupold fail yet.
Had Burris, vortex, Nikon fail. I still purchase Burris. If customer service falls a company I don't go back. Everyone has stuff that fails, but how they handle it? That says everything.

Giving Athlon a shot currently. Very impressed so far.

I have several, albeit in the 3-9x range. For hunting rifles, excepting p-dog and coyote shooting, I don't use magnification above 9x and try to stay below 6x. In that class of glass, Nikon PS is the value for money proposition and the entry level of good but not great glass. To step up magnification requires a step up in quality. Vortex Diamondback and Leupold VX3i tend to get my money in the next higher range of magnification

Prostaff 3X9 on a Savage for many years now, no problems

I have Nikon Prostaff 3-9X and the glass is good. Problem I have is the marking on the adjustment dials is a loose piece of plastic that shifts easily if you touch it; thus making it useless. I have mine on a 17HMR and it works fine. But, I needed to adjust it for different ammo and the markings are meaningless.
Also, I shoot prairie dogs out to 300 yards and use a Bushnell Elite 6-24X. For me, 4-12X would be inadequate for 500 yards if targets were smaller.

Sniper66 said:

Problem I have is the marking on the adjustment dials is a loose piece of plastic that shifts easily if you touch it; thus making it useless.

Click to expand...

Then it's broken and you should have it fixed. Mine does not do that. Its adjustment knobs are very secure.