I bought some Nikon binoculars years ago and dearly love them. They need some repairs so I contacted Nikon to find out what I need to do. They don't have a prepaid shipping label, are going to charge me to repair them and charge me for the return shipping. I have a pair of Vortex and sent them back to get the eyecups replaced, free shipping both ways, fix them free and were actually glad to help me and happy I bought their product. I have Nikon binos, camera, scope and spotting scope but will not buy anything else from them.

Similar experience that my dad had. I did like their optics but will never buy the again. Much better options and better warranties

I've found the glass in Nikons pretty good and newspaper photographers used to think their mechanicals were the best. Though they don't seem to make scopes any more (and I was critical of them when they did), I have had no reliability issues.

In this age of image-movement scopes, I think many makers give wonderful warranties for crap products. They know they will break down before they should - the warranty is just the cost of doing business with this technology.

With a history of making good-quality optics of all kinds, Nikon might just be a bit more traditional in the service department.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I've found the glass in Nikons pretty good and newspaper photographers used to think their mechanicals were the best. Though they don't seem to make scopes any more (and I was critical of them when they did), I have had no reliability issues.

In this age of image-movement scopes, I think many makers give wonderful warranties for crap products. They know they will break down before they should - the warranty is just the cost of doing business with this technology.

With a history of making good-quality optics of all kinds, Nikon might just be a bit more traditional in the service department.

Are there any new “modern” scopes that you like?

Not really, Jason, but I do have respect for the Elcan Specter, March Genesis and certain recent Valdada tactical scopes that retained reticle-movement. Burris's Posi-Lock and Swarovski's use of helical erector springs in the dearer models are both efforts to deal with the decadent inheritance, and I commend them for that.

I am not blind to the merits of small Leupolds and certain other brands but would not trust them far on any rifle that really kicks.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
March Genesis ... that retained reticle-movement.

This scope does not have reticle movement.
In fact the reticle is fixed, and in effect the whole scope moves around it.

Considering that your primary concern appears to be the weight of the moving element (normally the erector tube), your recommendation of this scope strikes me as very odd.

Furthermore this scope has a number of other drawbacks (such as sealing which seems to rely entirely on a couple of rubber bellows which will undoubtedly perish sooner or later).

And take note, I'm not saying that it's not a fantastic scope worth every cent of its' undoubtedly eye-watering price.

What I am saying is that not all scopes are made for the same job, and thus they cannot all be judged by the same criteria. I don't believe reticle movement is at all appropriate for a long-range target-shooting setup. And in fact I believe for the use you seem to put most of your scopes to, I contend that a red-dot (possibly with a flip-away magnifier) will actually suit you much better than the scopes you use now. I know you will have concerns about the reliability of the electronics and the life of the battery, but firstly I think if this was anywhere near as big a problem as you believe then the majority of the world's special forces units wouldn't be using them and secondly this can be addressed in a number of ways such as mounting co-witnessed iron sights.

Sorry Peter, but I did not say the Genesis did have reticle movement. I was just listing modern scopes I have some respect for, some of which did have reticle-movement when I wrote the book, at least.

You may have a point comparing the Genesis scope body with an erector tube, though. I would have to take the outer assembly to bits to see if it is equally fragile. Yes, the rubber will probably perish over time. However, whatever happens out there can at least be seen and, hopefully, repaired more easily. Stuff that goes wrong inside a scope is usually invisible, at least until after it sneaks up (like some critter you might be hunting) and bites you on the ass.

Let's not take such connections too far, though. I did not say reticle-movement was good for extreme-range shooting. But with your mentioning that, the main reason Hathcock and other US snipers favored Unertl target scopes has occurred to me: no matter how far you cranked up the elevation, the reticle stayed centred without losing brightness and precision from clicking towards lens edge.

Those old scopes were not as compact as the Redfield alternative and must have taken some protecting as Carlos crawled hundreds of yards to take shots, yet they are what he chose.

Regarding the red-dot sights, I don't trust them, either. I take it you've read my thoughts on illumination in that chapter called 'The lights are on ...' but for the benefit of others I'll explain them briefly.

I don't trust batteries or even circuitry when you don't need such stuff. Leupold don't even trust their own since they refused to warrant illumination in scopes for more than two years, while the rest of the scope gets life. At least with their scopes, if the light fails you have the reticle behind it. With little reflective sights, if the light goes out, you got 'nuttin'.

I hunt in some dark, rainforesty country from time to time but if I can't see my old #1 pickets against the 'black rats' (as the old houndmen called sambar) it's outside of legal hours and time to go home.