Hi all,

About 6 months ago, I purchased a 3-9x40 Nikon Pro Staff scope for atop my .22. I don't know if it's just my being used to higher-end optics, but the focus on this thing is pretty crappy. I've adjusted the focus up and down, but I can't seem to get it to look acceptably clear. I'll focus it at 3x, and when I crank it up to 9x, it will be blurry. The opposite is also true.

Would this appear to be a defective product, or am I just expecting too much from a $150 scope? I don't think I'm crazy because my dad's Bushnell Tropy on his .22 looks clear as day. Your thoughts, please.

I've not used this particular scope, but I would not be satisfied with it performing as you describe. Send it back as it wouldn't appear to be worth using as it is.

I imported several "refurbs" for rimfires and both are perfect cosmetically and totally acceptable optically. No mechanical issues so far.
I have all sorts of premium optics so am pretty fussy in that regard.

Chris P, NZ

That is not typical -- not even for a low-end Nikon. Send it back, and they will make it right.

Also, you said the scope cost $150. FOr about $15 more, you can get a BuckMasters, which is definitely a step up. Or, for $199, you can get a full-fledged 3-9x40 Nikon Monarch. These are being offered by several vendors as closeouts after Nikon revamped its lineup.

I'm not entirely sure how you are focusing it from your post, but let me suggest you try this:

Set the power to 9x. Look through the scope at the sky. Focus until the crosshairs are sharp.

That should be good for focus at all lower magnifications. If that, however, doesn't work, then send it back for repair.

LWD

quote:

Originally posted by LWD:
I'm not entirely sure how you are focusing it from your post, but let me suggest you try this:

Set the power to 9x. Look through the scope at the sky. Focus until the crosshairs are sharp.

That should be good for focus at all lower magnifications. If that, however, doesn't work, then send it back for repair.

LWD

That's how I normally focus a scope, and so far it's served me well with everything except this one. It's becoming more and more clear to me there is something wrong with this scope, as even when I focus the x-hair at the sky, it gets blurred at other magnifications.

quote:

That's how I normally focus a scope, and so far it's served me well with everything except this one. It's becoming more and more clear to me there is something wrong with this scope, as even when I focus the x-hair at the sky, it gets blurred at other magnifications.

If that's the case, then there's likely a problem with the scope. I'd send it back and get it looked at. All my Nikons have been great.

LWD

LWD wrote:

quote:

All my Nikons have been great.

Ditto for me...

don't feel like your the only one. I have the exact same scope, same model, same size, same zoom; along with the exact same problem. It's not real noticable, but it's like it can never be in perfect focus no matter how you adjust the focus. It put's strain on my eyes when I use it. I think it's just because of this particular model and my attention to detail. I'm in the process of moving up to a $300-$500 scope so I don't have to worry about this issue.
In the mean time, I'm able to shoot good groups, but it's irritating. I've had other people look through it and say, "it looks fine to me," at least until they look through it for a good amount of time. when I look through another person's scope I can tell the difference in the focus ability every time. Even at the store, I will put a scope out of focus and refocus it, but the prstaff just won't focus completely.

Well, I'll give everyone a little update:

We're headed for the NRA meetings later this week, and I plan on bothering the guys at the Nikon booth to see if I can get their input. Don't worry, I won't be obnoxious, but it helps a lot to be face to face and express your problem. Hopefully, this yields me some results.

Gohip, I'm "glad" to see I'm not the only one with this issue. The majority of our other scopes are Zeiss Conquests or Leupolds, which I find to be excellent optics. I didn't want to label myself an elitist, but I guess now I can see the differences in optical quality. Damn, ignorance used to be bliss!

What I'd really like to see happen would be for them to give me some kind of credit towards another scope. I'd consider giving one of their new Monarchs a try; they're supposed to be pretty good these days. Thanks for the many replies; I'll be sure to update when I get back.

Clayman wrote:

quote:

The majority of our other scopes are Zeiss Conquests or Leupolds, which I find to be excellent optics. I didn't want to label myself an elitist, but I guess now I can see the differences in optical quality. Damn

I'd hope you could see the difference in optical quality between a $125 scope and one that costs more than 3 times as much.

Clayman also wrote: "I'd consider giving one of their new Monarchs a try; they're supposed to be pretty good these days"

There was nothing wrong with the Monarchs of old, including the pre-Monarchs, of which I still have a couple.

The majority of my scopes are Nikon Monarch with a smattering of Burris, Weaver and Zeiss thrown in for good measure. The "L" scopes are gone, and I've had a few. That's because dollar for dollar, the Monarch is what I consider to be the best bang for the buck in the "under-$1000" lineup.

Overall, comparable Conquests will grade out slightly higher than the Monarchs in most critical optical categories, but the difference is virtually impossible to detect in the field.

Please let us know how it goes with the Nikon reps...

I just bought a zeizz and the clarity is night and day difference over the Nikon Prostaff. When you buy a better scope, I'm sure you'll see the difference too.