Fixed 4X Scope?

[Sulaco]

I am probably going to be getting a Remington 700 Mountain Rifle in 7mm-08 pretty soon and want to put a fixed 4X scope on it. I looked at the Leupold but it seems pretty cheap and is only a 33mm lens. It is also expensive. I have looked at a few others but the Nikon Buckmasters 4X40mm at about $160.00 is looking pretty nice. Any opinions on this scope? Any others I should look at?

Here's the Nikon

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I have also been looking at putting a fixed 4 (or maybe 6) on my .35 Whelen.

SWFA has the Leupold 4 for $220, includes free rings and bases if I remember right.

I haven't made my mind up yet either. I just default towards Leupold since I don't know much about scopes and they always seem a fair price for the quality.

Let us know which way you go and your impressions.

I could use some info to push me one way or the other also.

 

[El Tejon]

Without hesitation--S&B! I switched from Leupold to S&B and have not looked back. I like the big target towers, that's just me. YMMV.

 

[Sulaco]

I went to the local gun shop today and compared the Leupold with the Nikon. No comparison, Nikon wins hands down. Not only is it cheaper, but it uses brass to metal, not plastic to metal windage/elevation adjustments, the resolution, FOV and overall clarity is better and it uses actual clicks for adjustments. Unless I find something to beat this, I am going Nikon.

 

[WhiteKnight]

looked at the Leupold but it seems pretty cheap and is only a 33mm lens. It is also expensive.

It seems cheap, as in cheaply manufactured ("crappy")?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
----------------------------------------
I have also been looking at putting a fixed 4 (or maybe 6) on my .35 Whelen.
----------------------------------------

Bigfoot Wallace, my custom '03 Springfield in .35 Brown-Whelen mounts a old Leupold M8 4X fixed power, and has served me very well. I also have a couple of rifles mounting old Weaver, all-steel fixed power scopes.

My thinking is, don't buy a cheaply-made scope, regardless of who made it, or what they want for it. The number-one quality in a scope is rugged reliability. Don't sacrifice anything for that.

 

[Wildalaska]

A real hunting rifle should wear nothing less than a leupold.

Period

Flame away

WildtheyaretheoverallbestAlaska

 

[Sulaco]

It seems cheap, as in cheaply manufactured ("crappy")?

Yes, in my opinion, the Leupold 4X scope is cheaply made compared to the Nikon 4X.

The one in the store I looked at was not as bright as the Nikon (I compared them side by side) nor as clear. It also had less FOV and the coating used is not as good for maximum transmission. The only thing I couldn't tell is how long they will last. I guess only time will tell that.

Don't get me wrong, though as I am a big fan of Leupold, just not neccessarily in this instance.

 

[Gewehr98]

My favorite 4x scope?

Flame away, but there's something intrinsically classic and downright perfect about the old steel-tubed Weaver K4-60 series of scopes. Bright, clear optics, and they don't dwarf the rifle they're mounted on. Pretty stout construction, too! If you look hard enough, I'll wager WildAlaska probably has one for auction over on E-Bay!

 

[WhiteKnight]

Based on the fact the Nikon has a 40mm lens versus the Leupold's 33mm lens, I would hope the Nikon is brighter.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
---------------------------------
Based on the fact the Nikon has a 40mm lens versus the Leupold's 33mm lens, I would hope the Nikon is brighter.
----------------------------------

Brightness is based on exit pupil size (all other things being equal). Exit pupil is calculated by dividing objective lens size by magnification. For a 4X scope with a 33mm lens, the exit pupil would be a bit over 8mm, and for a 40mm lens, the exit pupil would be 10mm.

The catch is, the maximum dilation of the pupil of the human eye is 7mm -- anything larger than that is wasted. So the larger objective lens of the Nikon doesn't give you any advantage, and may have the disadvantage of requiring higher mounts.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Vern:

If that formula is true then the human eye can make use of no scope lens larger than 28mm.

 

[WhiteKnight]

If that formula is true then the human eye can make use of no scope lens larger than 28mm.

...scopes that have a 4x magnification

 

[Wildalaska]

If you look hard enough, I'll wager WildAlaska probably has one for auction over on E-Bay

Got to do something with them after folks trade em in on Leupolds

WildilikeitwhenyapayattentionAlaska

 

[Badger Arms]

A real hunting rifle should wear nothing less than a leupold.

And I agree.... So, what's MORE than a Leupold if you should have nothing LESS than a Leupold. Burris?

 

[Wildalaska]

So, what's MORE than a Leupold if you should have nothing LESS than a Leupold. Burris?

In the right case Id run a swarovski or one of the ZMZ Zeiss

WilddependsontheapplicationAlaska

 

[schromf]

2 rifles, with 4x Leupolds. One is about 18 years old, every deer hunt I have been on I carry that rifle, it doesn't sit in the gun rack. No complaints, one year when everybody elses scope in elk camp was fogged up cause it been raining constant for a week, I had the the only clear scope in the hunting party. I got my moneys worth. The price has changed over the years and I think I paid slightly less than $100 for the first one, my most recent cost about double that. Still worth the money.

One item I will ask, whats Nikon warranty? I bet its not replaced or fixed for your lifetime like the Leupolds.

just my ,02

 

[Art Eatman]

Unless you're hunting at the first or the last hints of legal light, the old Weaver K4 works just really well.

Sure, there are brighter scopes. There are scopes whose adjustments are "repeatable". I have much respect for them. But if your main deal is Bambi inside 300 yards, you're not gonna find any more utility in Mr. Big Glass' product than with the ancient 4X Weaver.

That doesn't keep me from having a fair number of Mr. Leupold's products, of course.

Art

 

[SHOOT1SAM]

Interesting. I've never heard of anyone perceiving a Leupold as "cheap" in terms of quality. I'll wager that there are infinitely more Leupolds seen by hunting guides, whether here in the US or on the Dark Continent, because of their legendary reliability. That said, there's not a whole lot wrong with Nikons eiither. However, drop a Leupold and IF it breaks, you have nothing to worry about as far as a repair or, more likely, a replacement, with no questions asked. Also, I personally take into consideration that Leupold is an American company. Ultimately, the choics should be made on what works best for you. Good luck in making that decision.

 

[Sulaco]

I don't know how else to day what I have already said so I will repeat it again for those that missed it the first time.

I went to the local gun shop today and compared the Leupold with the Nikon. No comparison, Nikon wins hands down. Not only is it cheaper, but it uses brass to metal, not plastic to metal windage/elevation adjustments, the resolution, FOV and overall clarity is better and it uses actual clicks for adjustments. Unless I find something to beat this, I am going Nikon.

 

[Wildalaska]

Unless I find something to beat this, I am going Nikon.

No offense, but you asked everybodys opinion and no matter what anybody said, you have made it clear you are getting a Nikon. Repeating your justification over and over again isnt gonna change any of our minds, and amply demonstrates all you are looking for is people to agree with you...

Aint gonna happen with most of us. Nikon makes nice glass, but regardless of what a salesman tells ya, it aint as good as a Leupold.

I live and hunt in Alaska.....the vast bulk of scopes used up here are Leupolds...

WildbutheywhateverfloatsyerboatAlaska

 

[Art Eatman]

Wild, my Leupolds all date back to around 1981 or earlier. Do you see any change in quality, these last ten or fifteen years?

Just a comment in passing: As far as Nikons, all I know about the company is their cameras. Dunno why their scopes wouldn't be high quality...

Art

 

[Wildalaska]

Art I think Leupold quality is better now....improved manufacturing methods, some design changes coupled with their stellar service make them the leader in the market..

Nikon makes nice glass...I have hear rumours that they actually make the glass for Leopold (who then coats it)...but all in all, unless you are springin for a $1700 Zeiss or S&B...buy a leupold


WildbottomlineAlaska

 

[rbernie]

but all in all, unless you are springin for a $1700 Zeiss or S&B...buy a leupold

Not to be a jerk, but why?

What I'm fishing for here is the experiences of folks who see a lot of scopes come thru and who can really explain why one brand may be better than another EVEN WHEN ANOTHER SCOPE LOOKS BETTER THRU THE LENS.

Lemme give you an example. I have a Leupold VariXIII 3-9, circa 1992 or so. I also have a 2002-vintage Simmons AETEC 2.8-10x44. To me, the Simmons is brighter and demonstrates far better edge-to-edge sharpness than the Leupold. The Simmons has all of the range of adjustment that I need, it holds its zero thru all sorts of poundings, and it has a lifetime warranty (altho I've never tried to use it). In short - I can't see why a Leupold would be better, yet many claim that it is.

So what I'm saying is that I'm not discounting what y'all are saying - I'm asking you to please educate me as to what I'm missing.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
--------------------------------------
What I'm fishing for here is the experiences of folks who see a lot of scopes come thru and who can really explain why one brand may be better than another EVEN WHEN ANOTHER SCOPE LOOKS BETTER THRU THE LENS.
---------------------------------------

I'm going to be an iconoclast here and say, it doesn't matter how the scope looks through the lens.

By that I mean almost any scope these days has more brightness, sharpness, and color-correction, etc., than you can use. By the same token, I have an old Lyman Alaskan that works perfectly well -- I don't feel a bit handicapped with it.

After all, scopes are not binoculars. You might spend hours looking through binoculars, and wind up with splitting headache from a small flaw in the optics. But how long do you spend looking through a scope? If you can hit with it, you can put up with less than optical perfection.

That's why I say what is important is reliability and ruggedness. I don't want a scope that will fog up, lose its zero, and so on.

And I've been around long enough to know that brands that once had a reputation for quality have been known to let quality slide (Winchester in '64 for example), while others that weren't so good, worked hard and improved quality (Taurus, for example.)

The same is true with scopes -- while I'll generally be drawn to a name brand, I look it over carefully. If it looks "cheap," I just might pass on it.