Leupold VXII VS Nikon Buckmasters
- Thread starter BOW CEFUS
- Start date
- Status
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Nikon better glass. Leupold better warranty service. For a real hunting rifle that will go into the field, get banged around, and also considering that neither is exactly a high-end scope when it comes to optics (making glass a little more moot when weighing the options) ....I'd go Leupold.
grizz
Member
They're both pretty good scopes, but I can't see how the Leupold is worth $100 more. I compared both scopes every time I was in the market and I now have 3 Nikon Buckmasters (2 3-9x and 1 4.5-14x).
Were using Leupold's made from as far back as the early to mid 60's. How good of a scope do you want or what's your dollar worth in the long run. if one did break it is only shipping to Oregon for a returned in "as new" condition scope, no receipt needed. Nikon is a good scope but I own Leupold's
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Depends. Across the entire Leupold line, they are dollar for dollar INFERIOR optically to other brands. Why? Because they charge extra for their superior warranty service. They are building replacement into the cost of a scope. That VX-II costs $100 more, well Leupold's cost for building that scope is less to also make room for service/shipping when a warranty claim is made.
There's nothing special about the glass, internals or body of a Leupold to justify the premium paid for them vs. other brands. It's all about the lifetime transferable, no questions asked warranty. Smart business if you ask me. Consumers love to have product confidence and Leupold gives them that. It's safe to say most scopes don't come back for service, so they make out well. On the other hand, you can be the 4th owner of a scope and still have 100% warranty support as if you were the original owner, even 20 years later. That can't be offered for free.
Regolith
Member
Between those two companies...I'd say go for the cheaper one. They're both first-rate optics manufacturers, so you're going to get a good scope regardless.
rbernie
Contributing Member
DTOM speaks the truth, but there's one more datapoint to add. The Leupold scope body is thicker and the finish anodizing much more robust than the Nikon. These differences don't make the view thru the scope any better, but they do make the scope much more likely to survive field use. They certainly make the scope look much better when/if it comes time to sell it.
I've had Nikon bodies dent under impacts that the Leupold just shrugged off. For hunting use, that's worth something to me.
I've had Nikon bodies dent under impacts that the Leupold just shrugged off. For hunting use, that's worth something to me.
trainwreck100
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 175
I voted Nikon, simply because of reticle choices. Leupold really doesn't offer a whole lot in the VX-II line. Other than that, I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the Leupold sitting on top of my Remington 700.
I have a Buckmaster 4-14. Its a great scope and I love it.
When I bought it, it was comparable in price to a 3-9 VX-I. The Buckmaster seemed like a nicer scope than the VX-1 and the extra magnification fit in with its intended dual use on my .243 as a varmit and deer scope.
Comparing apples to apples, I'd take a 3-9 VX-II over a 3-9 Buckmaster anyday.
When I bought it, it was comparable in price to a 3-9 VX-I. The Buckmaster seemed like a nicer scope than the VX-1 and the extra magnification fit in with its intended dual use on my .243 as a varmit and deer scope.
Comparing apples to apples, I'd take a 3-9 VX-II over a 3-9 Buckmaster anyday.
Leupold's are also good sellers if you resell the rifle and/or scope.
I bought a Remington 7400 at a pawn shop for the sole purpose of selling the rifle and keeping the Leupold scope on it. I thought I came out pretty good on the deal.
On the other hand, Nikon is much easier to spell. I keep typing Leopold without thinking.
I bought a Remington 7400 at a pawn shop for the sole purpose of selling the rifle and keeping the Leupold scope on it. I thought I came out pretty good on the deal.
On the other hand, Nikon is much easier to spell. I keep typing Leopold without thinking.
I played this game about a month ago, my choices included a Burris (which is what I went w/), if it wasn't Burris, I was prepared to go with the Nikkon. I just went down to the gun shop and looked through all of them. I feel like the Nikkon was brighter than the Leupold, but indoor light is tricky...
Recent Leupold warranty experience
My folks believed just what everyone on here says: that leupold will take 40 year old scope and fix it for free - no questions asked, lifetime no-fault warranty.
Well my Dad was elk hunting last year in the rainy northwest, slipped on a log and his Vari-X II 3-9 hit the log and the rear bell was bent at the threads. I told him no problem, send it in, you'll get it back no charge, good as new. Well, he sent it in, but they charged him $100 to fix it.
Just FYI, leupold's warranty isn't a lifetime no-fault warranty like some would have you believe.
My folks believed just what everyone on here says: that leupold will take 40 year old scope and fix it for free - no questions asked, lifetime no-fault warranty.
Well my Dad was elk hunting last year in the rainy northwest, slipped on a log and his Vari-X II 3-9 hit the log and the rear bell was bent at the threads. I told him no problem, send it in, you'll get it back no charge, good as new. Well, he sent it in, but they charged him $100 to fix it.
Just FYI, leupold's warranty isn't a lifetime no-fault warranty like some would have you believe.
Nikon has a well deserved reputation for manufacturing fine optics whether it is camera lenses, rifle scopes, spotting scopes etc.
I own and have used Nikon cameras and lenses for the past 30 years. I own and use a Nikon rifle scope and a spotting scope and have for the past 3 years. I do not own a Leupold product.
Both my Rifle scope and spotting scope have been banged around enough that I believe they are built to the same standards of durability as their camera equipment (which is mucho, mucho rugged - I can attest to that from experience). It seems doubtful that Leupold could build anything more rugged than Nikon and since their optics probably are no better and maybe not as good based on comments from other posters it would seem that the Nikon should be your choice.
I own and have used Nikon cameras and lenses for the past 30 years. I own and use a Nikon rifle scope and a spotting scope and have for the past 3 years. I do not own a Leupold product.
Both my Rifle scope and spotting scope have been banged around enough that I believe they are built to the same standards of durability as their camera equipment (which is mucho, mucho rugged - I can attest to that from experience). It seems doubtful that Leupold could build anything more rugged than Nikon and since their optics probably are no better and maybe not as good based on comments from other posters it would seem that the Nikon should be your choice.
Peerhaps in the way it was damaged, abuse maybe? Still $100 for a new VariX-II 3x9 is a bargain.
I have sent in two Older Leupold VariX-II's in the last couple of years. A 2X7 and a 3X9 both were old enough to only have a five digit serial number (60's). Both were completely disassembled and returned in "as new" condition. The 2X7 had been damaged before I ever owned it so no idea how or what had happened to it before I mounted it on a older mini 14 and beat it up some more. The 3X9 was OK after a check but again before I owned it somehow the objective lens had been scratched. When it came home the lens had been replaced free and unasked for. I cannot speak for others as this is my only personal experience with the company. Which was all one could ask for IMO.
I did have some Nikon Binoculars go bad, not warranted forever I threw them away and now have Leupold bino's I hunt with. For the money the cost the Nikon's were a good product till they broke, began seeing double. I used them several years in not always so good of conditions. Our digi camera is Nikon and is a quality product.
GunNut
Member
I personally see very little difference between Nikon, Leupold and Burris in their respective price ranges.
MAX100
Member
The over price Leupold VXI and VXII scopes have a two piece tube. They fail to tell anyone about that in their ads. I would go with the better priced, more for your money Nikon.
GC
GC
Burris Fullfield II Ballistic Plex.
At least I'm happy with mine (3-9x40mm on a .30-06 Weatherby Vanguard, very similar to a 700), and so are others on the Board. $200 or so will buy a very nice, very durable scope with a drop reticle quite suitable and easy to use for hunting.
I don't know about the Nikons. Leupolds are good scopes, and I've shot a higher-end varmint version of the combo you're talking about. The Leupie works great; the gun shoots tiny groups. They may be some more bucks for the bang, however.
At least I'm happy with mine (3-9x40mm on a .30-06 Weatherby Vanguard, very similar to a 700), and so are others on the Board. $200 or so will buy a very nice, very durable scope with a drop reticle quite suitable and easy to use for hunting.
I don't know about the Nikons. Leupolds are good scopes, and I've shot a higher-end varmint version of the combo you're talking about. The Leupie works great; the gun shoots tiny groups. They may be some more bucks for the bang, however.
kennedy
Member
check out the used glass market, just picked up a used var-II 3x9 for $189, looks and works perfect.
Charles S
Member
Honestly, I have yet to look through the Nikon Buckmaster, but I am sure it is clear durable glass.
I do however own two Leupold VXIIs that I am very happy with. I have a Nikon Monarch that is much more clear than the VXII and IMHO rivals my Vari X III. I have yet to break a Leupold or a Nikon so I have no experience with either companies customer service.
The real difference to me (for some applications) is eye relief. In a hard kicking rifle longer eye relief is better, and the VX II has longer eye relief than does the Nikon Monarch.
As a matter of fact the single reason I did not choose the Burris Fullfield was eye relief.
I have a Sightron SII that is very clear, but does not have enough eye relief when the power is high for the rifle it is on.
For me a long eye relief is critical for a hunting rifle, but then again I typically choose moderate calibers in very light rifles.
I do however own two Leupold VXIIs that I am very happy with. I have a Nikon Monarch that is much more clear than the VXII and IMHO rivals my Vari X III. I have yet to break a Leupold or a Nikon so I have no experience with either companies customer service.
The real difference to me (for some applications) is eye relief. In a hard kicking rifle longer eye relief is better, and the VX II has longer eye relief than does the Nikon Monarch.
As a matter of fact the single reason I did not choose the Burris Fullfield was eye relief.
I have a Sightron SII that is very clear, but does not have enough eye relief when the power is high for the rifle it is on.
For me a long eye relief is critical for a hunting rifle, but then again I typically choose moderate calibers in very light rifles.
SShooterZ
Member
Of the two, I'd probably pick the Leupold. They are good quality and the warranty can't be beat, especially when going on a hunting rifle that might get banged around.
For overall brightness and clarity, you would be hard pressed to beat a Weaver Grand Slam or a Nikon Monarch.
For overall brightness and clarity, you would be hard pressed to beat a Weaver Grand Slam or a Nikon Monarch.
anymanusa
Member
Nikon all the way. All of you talking about the warranty being better with Leupold, I can't imagine thats true. Nikon offers LIFETIME warranty on their scopes, better glass, and I've heard nothing but how good Nikons warranty service is on their cameras and lenses over on the photography forum.
Nikon is a better value for the money.
Nikon is a better value for the money.
Leupold gets my vote for a few reasons first of all I have always been very satisfied with their products and in the few times repairs have been needed they have always come through without any questions or problems.
In all the years of use and abuse my Leupolds have not failed and only when I messed up did a scope need to be fixed.
They have been and will be around for decades to come.
For cameras I buy Japanese but for rifle scopes I choose Leupold Kahles Zeiss or IOR.
In all the years of use and abuse my Leupolds have not failed and only when I messed up did a scope need to be fixed.
They have been and will be around for decades to come.
For cameras I buy Japanese but for rifle scopes I choose Leupold Kahles Zeiss or IOR.
- Status
