stillquietvoice
Contributing Member
I have the 4-16 mildot monarch 3 and a 4- 12 bushmaster 2 bdc. Good glass. I like the MIL dot better it's more precise.
Best mid-priced rifle scope? Nikon, vortex, etc..
- Thread starter TBL65
- Start date
- Status
I have the 4-16 mildot monarch 3 and a 4- 12 bushmaster 2 bdc. Good glass. I like the MIL dot better it's more precise.
If1HitU
Member
I just added another Scope a Cabelas Caliber-Specific Riflescope 3-12x40.
DukeConnor
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2016
- Messages
- 1,123
Don't forget to compare warranties.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Agree with @jmr40 and @Walkalong. $300-400 for a good used Leupold is first choice for a hunting rifle; that much or a bit more for a used Vortex Viper (HST, PST) with a ranging reticle if you're going to twist turrets on targets.
Thought I would update everyone in this topic. I apologize I forgot about it for a while as my attention as been else where. But I did end up making a purchase!
a few months ago I purchased a Nikon Black FX1000 4-16 FFP MRAD scope. Got a very good deal on it so I couldn’t pass it up for the price range I was looking at.
still trying to decide on a rifle to put it on. Been looking into the howa 100’s and Ruger American predators (which I also have a thread on) but also been looking at the savage 12FV And Remington 700 ADL. Going to try and take advantage of a holiday deal if possible!
a few months ago I purchased a Nikon Black FX1000 4-16 FFP MRAD scope. Got a very good deal on it so I couldn’t pass it up for the price range I was looking at.
still trying to decide on a rifle to put it on. Been looking into the howa 100’s and Ruger American predators (which I also have a thread on) but also been looking at the savage 12FV And Remington 700 ADL. Going to try and take advantage of a holiday deal if possible!
IMO, how well a scope holds zero IS "the warranty". Generally speaking, if the first scope held zero poorly, unless you got a defect, the one they replace it with will hold zero just as poorly.
Nikon is nice glass, and, IME holds zero well. Leupold is always a good bet. Vortex glass is less quality than either.
The others I haven't tried.
erniegarcia4
Member
I guess it all depends how great a long range rifle one has. When I owned my AR50 BMG with 30" detachable aircraft HB, no midrange scope seemed to be handle the pressure wave and my groups at 300 yards were 6" apart. It wasn't until I invested in a Zeiss Conquest that I could shoot 3 inch groups at 800 yards. In 1997 the cost was $400 on supersale but what amazing optics. Even though only a 3x9 50mm, the glass was so clear and bright, I could see the group's through the scope at 800 yards.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,883
Nikon is a bad bet for the future. They’ve ceased all production of riflescopes, with future warranties only lasting as long as their repair/replace inventory holds up.
I saw that they were stopping the rifle scope line a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately I had purchased the scope well before they announced that. At the time and for the price I got it for it seemed to be the best of the bunch. Still haven’t even put into on a rifle, basically still new in the box aside from taking it out to look through it
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,883
We have a whole thread on it.
25-20 WCF
Member
Skylerbone
Member
If you want a real account of the why I can sum it up; they traded on their name, didn’t keep up with trends, never matured with their optics and coatings quality until the 11th hour, and confounded consumers with their inconsistent naming scheme.
After looking through a few of Nikon’S recent efforts I felt they were finally gaining some self-interest but my guess is the bean counters were tired of slimming margins and share so the plug was pulled.
The upshot for me is that I’ll have one less cheap temptation to deal with, having forked over far too much to Nikon for far less than I actually wanted.
After looking through a few of Nikon’S recent efforts I felt they were finally gaining some self-interest but my guess is the bean counters were tired of slimming margins and share so the plug was pulled.
The upshot for me is that I’ll have one less cheap temptation to deal with, having forked over far too much to Nikon for far less than I actually wanted.
This is helpful. I've only owned one Nikon scope; didn't like it and sold it. Did have really nice Nikon camera which my ex took when she flew the coop...oh well, not for this site
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,883
Nikon was stuck carrying a product line of which the overwhelming majority of their customers did not approve. Camera buyers and wildlife watchers are most commonly anti-hunting. Nikon even ran anti-hunting as campaigns in the past, “shoot photos, not bullets”. Their rifle scope lines have been their redheaded step children.
I would contend, it’s NOT accurate to say they have not tried to keep up with evolving market trends. Frankly, the opposite is likely the truth - they’ve chased the dollar with more rapid evolution of specific models than almost any other brand. They marketed BDC hunting reticles for long range hunting, rode the predator calling wave of the early 2000’s with their Coyote Specials, pumped out a handful of AR specific scopes and mounts, and most recently threw the Black series at the new Long Range Precision Rifle competition trend. To say it all at once like this, I can’t think of any other brand who has tried to stay as closely in step with customer trends as has Nikon. Maybe it’s fair to state Nikon spent too much money chasing trends and didn’t deliver proper products, or that their bets didn’t come up in their favor often enough, but it’s obviously not apt to say they let trends slip by them as some other brands have (cough, Leupold, cough)...
I would contend, it’s NOT accurate to say they have not tried to keep up with evolving market trends. Frankly, the opposite is likely the truth - they’ve chased the dollar with more rapid evolution of specific models than almost any other brand. They marketed BDC hunting reticles for long range hunting, rode the predator calling wave of the early 2000’s with their Coyote Specials, pumped out a handful of AR specific scopes and mounts, and most recently threw the Black series at the new Long Range Precision Rifle competition trend. To say it all at once like this, I can’t think of any other brand who has tried to stay as closely in step with customer trends as has Nikon. Maybe it’s fair to state Nikon spent too much money chasing trends and didn’t deliver proper products, or that their bets didn’t come up in their favor often enough, but it’s obviously not apt to say they let trends slip by them as some other brands have (cough, Leupold, cough)...
Sav .250
Member
If I`m spending $800-$1,000 or more of my own money...You can bet I`m doing my own home work.
redneck2
Member
I was always underwhelmed by the optical quality (or lack thereof) with Nikon. I have a friend that had a .223 specific model on his AR. He was trying to convince me of how good it was until he used my Leupold, then went back to his. He Sold it the next week.
I'd probably consider increasing the budget just a bit, by $100 or so, and taking a good look at Meopta Meopro series. They've been my favorite scopes, dollar-for-dollar and bang-for-the-buck, in $500 category. Stunning glass quality for the price. No tricks, gimmicks, bells or whistles, just simple no-nonsense quality scopes.
dranrab
Member
Leupold can be called a lot of good things, but their dependability as reliable trackers is suspect at best. I don't think I have ever owned one that dialed in on target correctly. I have always done the set and forget thing, but if it won't adjust in precisely, I have reasonable doubts that it would dial correctly. The internet is full of very credible accounts of the CDS system failing.
dranrab
Member
I was just in Academy. I was bored so I adjusted 3 different scopes in the 229-259 price range the best I could for my eyes and went back and forth between them. I set them all to 4X. The Burris was better for me than the Nikon, and the Nikon was better than the Vortex. The Vortex was, and has been every time I tinkered with one, very meh to me. The eye relief isn't great and they are a little fussy to get behind. The optical clarity is good enough, but not as clean as the others. I think some of this has to do with my eyes.
cdb1
Member
My eyes are exactly the same regarding those scopes.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,409
Congrats. Hope you like it.
- Status
