I`m going to get a new scope I was wondering which brand you guys think is best nikon, burris, or leupold. I know there are lots of other brands but i`m going two probably go with one of these.

Thank you for the help

What are You planing to do with it...

My answer would be definetly Swarovski ...

No other scope will give You that optical quality with such a crisp clear image - but the price maybe out of your range...

With Your choices and not knowing want you wanna do with it, probably the Leupold...

out of your choises id pick leupold. But thats a personal choise and im sure youll get as many differnt opinions as you get replys

one thing ill add is theres a big differnce in quality and optical performance between the low cost offerings and the top shelf offerings of all three of them. They all make great scopes in there higher priced lines and mediocure scopes in there budget line.

quote:

one thing ill add is theres a big differnce in quality and optical performance between the low cost offerings and the top shelf offerings of all three of them

I don't really find that to be true with Leupold. While I've never used their "leader" line sold in discount houses, the "Rifleman" series, the base VX-I gives you 98% of the optical performance of the best scopes. I find no difference in it and the VX-II other than the click adjustments, and the VX-3 has "color-adjusted" lens coatings that some people like, although the coatings actually render colors slightly skewed from normal.

I'm sure that the other two manufacturers make good optical instruments. However, Leupold understands how to make an optical instrument which has its features best adapted to service as an optical gunsight. Anybody can make a good telescope these days. Making a gunsight with proper eye relief, compact size, integrity of seals and adjustments, etc. requires experience in hunting and target shooting uses that the camera companies just don't have.

+1 on Leupold offering the better quality budget lined units but the Burris is one of the toughest scopes on the market and that is one of the main reasons I buy them.

I have both Burris and Leupold's on many of my rifles but would not cross off a Nikon Monarch. The problem is that the vx-1's are as clear as the Nikon Monarch's for half the money but very little competes with the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 for its price point.

depends on what you're using it on and what for.

Thanks for all the advice so far and to awnser the what's it for I'm putting it on a 300 win mag hunting rifle

One more for Leupold!

Peter

Leupold is still made in Oregon, and still has a lifetime warranty. On the scope, not the owner.

Rich

I have a lot of other scopes apart from my Leupold. Most of them have better glass at a higher price point. Wish Leupold could stick that higher quality glass in their scopes as well, like S&B has only one quality - not 3 different levels like Leupold.

However I am very happy with my cheaper VX2 3-9x40 mm and if I could not take my quarry down with it, no other scope would have done it either. In the field that extra 5% or 10% better glass would not make you shoot better, unless you are at the edge of the day when you should not be shooting anyway - at least not in my part of the world.

Warrior

Leupold will hold it's value better but the others make godd scopes as well, both probably a little better optically per dollar spent. I think the 3x9x40 Conquest under $400 is a great deal and would be perfect on a 300 Mag hunting rifle but the others would work quite well too.

Of the brands you mentioned, I would definitely go with Leupold.

All the brands you mentioned are great brands, shop and compare and see which one meets your applications. Good luck and good hunting.
31 bertram

thanks guys for all the advice i think i`m going to go to cabelas and look at the burris fulfield 2 and leupold rifle man and vx1 and see which one i like better

I have a Burris 3x9x40 FF II and it has been tough as nails, been using it for quite a few yrs now. Hope this helps.
31 bertram

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Leupold is still made in Oregon, and still has a lifetime warranty. On the scope, not the owner.

Rich

Correction----it is assembled to some extent here in order to be able to claim “Made In USA”. Components and assemblies are sourced from China.

Leupold VX II or above.

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Leupold is still made in Oregon, and still has a lifetime warranty. On the scope, not the owner.

Rich

Correction----it is assembled to some extent here in order to be able to claim “Made In USA”. Components and assemblies are sourced from China.

Leupold have consistently denied this rumour. Please give a source for your assertion.

For hunting rifles, Leupold and Burris have done me well. Only had one Redfield, but that was before their recent shutdown.

Leupold makes a good scope with outstanding after purchase service and I would go with them over Burris or Nikon. Have owned many Leupolds, Burris, Bausch & Lomb and Bushnell,etc and now buy only Kahles and Swarovski but my decision now is based solely on optical quality, my eyes are getting old and need all the help they can get.

In 30 yrs of guiding I've seen 4 Redfields,2 Zeiss,2 Swarorski,and 2 SmidhtBenders go bad on hunts. Never had a problem with a Leupold. My friends who use Nikon and Burris have good luck as well.

I own close to a dozen riflescopes and binoculars and exactly <zero> are Leupolds.
Worst quality for the dollar I can think of.
If you do a realistic comparison btw LEup Rifleman(garbage) VX-1 (better than garbage) and the Burris FFII, the Burris is the winner. I own two on high-recoil rifles and they're clear, sharp and sturdy. Never had to be sent back for that awesome warranty replacement in Oregon.

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:


Go to the SHOT Show and ask them---that is what I did.

Hearsay is hardly what one calls a definitive answer, especially when Leupold vehemently deny it.
They state that their lenses come from outside the US(few don't) & that the rest of the scope is made in the US.
I'm far more minded to believe their posted assertion than someone else saying "because I heard heard it....".

quote:

Originally posted by thinkingman:
I own close to a dozen riflescopes and binoculars and exactly <zero> are Leupolds.
Worst quality for the dollar I can think of.
If you do a realistic comparison btw LEup Rifleman(garbage) VX-1 (better than garbage) and the Burris FFII, the Burris is the winner. I own two on high-recoil rifles and they're clear, sharp and sturdy. Never had to be sent back for that awesome warranty replacement in Oregon.

So if you don't own any Leupold's how do you know?

The last Leupold that I purchased (VX3 8.5-25x50 LR) did not say "Made in USA" anywhere on the scope or box. (My older ones did!) It also failed after 200 rounds of .308 on a heavy target rifle. (Leupold replaced it)

It was the 3rd time that I had to send a Leupold back. They have served me well on hunting rifles (2.5-8x36s) but I no longer trust them on centerfire competition rifles.

I haven't had any problems with Nikon but a friend had to send several of his Monarch's back. (I also see a lot of refurbished ones for sale) I only have one Burris and it is on a rimfire. It has however, held up perfectly.

I will say that Leupold's service has been excellent. It's just a shame that I have had to use it.

I suspect that the difference in reliability and quality between the brands in question will be insignificant.

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:


You guys with the Gold Ring on everything you own are funny sometimes. You just keep believing what you want.

So you DON'T have anything to back up your gossip(or I should say, blatant untruth) with?

FYI I use two other manufacturers' products where I saw the need - both considerably more expensive than the Leupolds.

Myself I only buy zeiss, their a far better scope then the three you ask about. Of the three you ask < I'd buy the burris or the nikon,a leupold if you need to wipe. leupold as far as I'm concerned is about 40 to 45% over priced for what your getting and the quality is not better then the other two by any means and the optics are secondrate. In the 70's leupold and redfield where the scopes to buy but I think their quality stayed in the 70's, their eye relief varies to much through the power range, the glass doesn't seem to be any better and I hate to see someone waste their money not getting the best for their hard earned dollars these days. zeiss is my first pick in optics for the money but you'll always have someone ,somewhere get a bad scope in any brand, thats life, spend your money wisely my friend.

quote:

Originally posted by Oddbod:

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:


You guys with the Gold Ring on everything you own are funny sometimes. You just keep believing what you want.

So you DON'T have anything to back up your gossip(or I should say, blatant untruth) with?

FYI I use two other manufacturers' products where I saw the need - both considerably more expensive than the Leupolds.

I have most of my scopes built to my specifications-----no need to justify myself to you however, if you know anyone in the industry this information is easily obtained.

Due to poor quality with newly manufactured Leupold scopes (a VX II, a VX-3, and a VX-7), all requiring return to Leupold for "fixing", I will buy no more of them.
Two of the Zeiss Conquests are best buys as far as glass and eye releif go; the 3-9x40, and the fixed 4x, both with 4" of eye relief, and they are priced similar to Leupold's of the same power, but a notch better than Leupold's optics.
Also have 4 Swaro scopes I like a lot, plus a S&B fixed 4x, probably the best optics of any 4x I've compared it to.
Don't own any, but hear very good things from owners of the new Minox scopes.

After comparing a Bushnell elite with a Leupold VXII I am sold on the Bushnells. They have the biggest bang for the buck. Incredibly bright optics, the first and only anti-fog coating that actually works. Their service doesnt hold a candle to Leupold, but apparently even Leupolds service is going the way of the do-do bird.

Try going to your local sports outlet and compare for yourself. The lower end Bushnells are crap, but the better ones have one of the highest light transmission ratings in the market.

With that said, I just purchased one of the Japan made Weaver K-6 scopes for just over $100.00. I am looking forward to puting it to the test as well. Should be a great value.


Im sure Swarovskis rock. But until I hit the lottery $2000.00 for a scope aint happening.. Not for this Truck driver..

I have 05 illuminated z6's

Just bought a Bushnell 6500 4.5 - 30 for range zeroing work

I am amazed at its quality as compared to all the usual gucci and Louis Vitton scopes I have in Europe

For the money you are getting 98% for less than a quater of the price

cannot beat a 6500 seriously

I for one will give my opinion and here it is.
Go put your eyes (and hands) on as many as you can. Look first compare and then take a second look. Your eyes are the best tool you have to compare the expressed virtues of these optics. Put your eye where your wallet is.

Lupy... Then Burris of what you mentioned... I would recommend zeiss conquest at the same or near price point.

*Sigh* hate to see ugliness in such threads but people do get feisty about "their brand". Since I own scopes by a variety of makers including all three of these I will toss in my 2 cents.

The Nikon Monarch has excellent optics, probably the brightest/clearest of the mid priced offerings of scopes. They are somewhat short scopes, however, and for me have often been problematic to fit on many rifles. They also tend to have somewhat of a "tunnel effect" and seem to have a narrower field of view. If they fit the rifle they make nice target or varmint gun scopes. I presently have one on an old winchester 43 22 hornet. The Prostaff's are decent quality/solid cheaper scopes, though a bit heavier and I think not one piece? A decent scope for the money. The 3-9x32 shotgun model makes a nice rimfire scope.

Leupold's--I have mostly vx-ii scopes (granted all old enough to be usa marked ones) plus the rimfire which is a vx-1. They have better optics/glass than the detractors would have you believe, plus huge benefits in eye relief, non fussiness of eye position, and they are a longer scope--i have NEVER that I recall had a problem fitting a Leupold scope on a rifle with standard rings. They have a noticeably wider field of view to me than most of the japanese offerings, and have a sort of airy/open quality, no tunnel effect. I think this is somewhat of a conscious trade-off, btw. I think some of the japanese offering have slightly sharper/clearer optics but get the tunnel effect as a result, whereas the leupies choose to have the wider field of view and less fussiness of eye position but ever so slightly less sharp optics. I consider them excellent hunting scopes.

Burris. I actually started out as a Burris fan when I got to the point in like where I could afford other than cheap scopes. They are rugged and I was a big fan of the older Fullfield and Signature scopes--the old long ones with the offset turrets. My oldest scope is a Burris Fullfield. They also have a fairly wide field of view, and have the added benefit of the crosshairs always staying black when some others will turn that coppery color under certain light conditions. I am less of a fan of the ffii scopes--they are shorter and you get into the japanese scope tendency to be hard to mount far enough back. They do tend to have the package deals which is nice I guess if you need the other item, but there are probably other scopes I would personally go for in that price point. (though one online vendor has the 3-9 for $119 at the moment, that's a hard deal to pass up) If they brought back the older style I would be right there though.

You may wish to consider the Bushnell Elite 3200's on clearance from several places at the moment--midway has the 3-9x40's for $139. They are of similar quality plus have the rainguard and again are a longer scope for ease of mounting--at that price they are the steal of the moment over the others you mentioned. Besides those you should look at the weaver classic 3-9. As japanese scopes go they are a tad longer, they have excellent glass, and weavers arguably have the best adjustment system out there.

Just a few observations off the top of my head, ymmv. Fwiw, I consider all of the brands mentioned to be of comparable quality with each having slightly different characteristics, choice should be made based on which of those suits your needs best, and most would probably suit. Though we agonize over such decisions, there is no bad one here so don't sweat it too much =)

sorry all you leupold bashers and zeiss cheerleaders but ive got a 3x9 conquest and its not a bit better opticaly then the old varxIII and in my opinion isnt as good as a vx3. If ever in my opinion you are paying for a name its with a conquest. i just had to have one. Id used but not owned a couple high dollar zeiss scopes and they were superb scopes but the conquest are only a good scope and dont hold up to the name. Using comman sense anyone would know that the germans cant produce a 400 dollar scope that is anywhere near as good as there top end models and i doubt they can produce a scope in the 400 dollar price range that can compare to to what the Japs or even the americans can. Do a search one time for zeiss conquests and youll find there just a troublesome as any scope. Ive owned all of the mid priced scope brands and the ONLY one ive never had to send in for repair is a leupold. Sure you pay a tad more but that reliability and peace of mind is worth it to me. To many here have one of two scopes and beat there chest about the brand they chose because God only knows they couldnt be wrong. talk to the guys that have used them all. Also look whats on about 80 percent of the custom rifles you see and what most of the guides youll run into use and youll find that its leupold hands down.

I have a VX3 that failed on me in south Africa in 08. The erector spring had broke. When I returned, I called Leupold and they fixed it and was back to me in less than 3 weeks.The scope at the time was around 17yrs old. Customer service said if you do not change the point of impact the springs will go bad. I will buy another Leupold for that reason.

I would go with Nikon. The best glass out of the 3.

Burris is the toughest.

Leupold has far better marketing than the other 2 combined, then squared. So many people know about Leupold's Customer Service Department because so many scopes have broken and had to go back in for repair. Seriously. Leupold koolaide drinkers get pissed off when this little fact is pointed out. And no, it is NOT because there are so many Leupolds out there and that is why the number of broken scopes is so high. And their Customer Service Dept is not all that great anyway. Frequent flyers have all sorts of horror stories about how screwed up their CS Dept can be at times. Folks get all excited because they have a lifetime warranty and that is it. "Any mechaincal thing can fail," is the next thing they usually tell you. The deal is that most folks read their computer far more than their rifles, so they just repeat what they read. very few people shoot 300+ days a year. Have had too many problems myself and have seen oodles of exact same problems with both the sciopes and the CSD. But damn, their advertising budget sure is high!

BTW-Leupold is BY FAR my favorite maker for the shape of their scopes. They are very light for their magnification range, which can be nice. But damn, those lines are just killer. My favorite shape of scopes, that's for sure.

Out of the 3 you mention, in an ideal world you could have the optics of Nikon, the toughness of Burris, and the looks and weight of Leupold. But in the real world that we live in that is not the case. I recently decided that I have bought my last Leupold unless I need one for the weight.