In a previous poll I asked the question 375 H&H or a 458 WM. In the end I purchased one of each on identical Charles Daly Yugoslavian Mouser actions and stocks. The 375 came with a Nikon Monarch 3-9x40 and the 458 WM came "necked" with no iron sites but with a Leupold standard ring mount one-piece base.

Question:
So here is the my next question - I am only interested in one of these two scopes for the 458 WM

Choices:
Nikon Monarch African 1-4x20
Leupold Vari-X II 1-4x20

 

I voted for the Nikon as a) the model I looked at slightly longer eye relief than the Leupold, and b) the Nikon lenses are fully-multicoated.

George

Thanks GeorgeS!

I guess I forgot to include an invitation for voters to tell why the voted for one over the other - was it just due to name recognition, overall brand reputation, or due to technical specification comparison between these two specific models.

In general, Nikon offers better optics and performance for the dollar than Leupold.

The big advantage to Leupold, is the resale. Of two scopes, Leupold will hold better value as trade in. Today, a ten year old scope or ten years from now, I expect the same.

Nikon makes a better lens, period.

I can buy a Nikon for $200 that is more/less comparable to a Leupold at $400. I can hold scopes side by side and "SEE" the differences. As prices climb the difference seems more bragin rights, brand loyalty or gimmicks than performance.

Of the two choices, I would take the Nikon African over the Vari-X I , II or III.

Fourbore:

I have actually been looking at the resale value of both – a bit difficult on the Nikon as it hasn’t been on the market as long as the Leupold.

Comparing prices – I can get the new Nikon for about $250 or the used Leupold for about the same (or a little less) or a new one for about $300.

Several other web sites have guys who have posted reports on the Leupold on 458 Lotts that have not have satisfactory service due to recoil. One poster even said he called Leupold and claimed he was told nothing in their line would live long on the Lott. Granted, I am only at the WM level and will likely not be shooting many max loads out of it. Nikon claims the "African" is specifically designed for the heavy hitters.

I have a number of Nikons in various models. Had only one that was mounted on my 1895M that I was shooting max 400gr loads through – the reticule (crosshairs) actually broke. Called Nikon, got an RMA number sent it in and it was back in my hands in less than 2 weeks. Total cost was postage to the Nikon repair facility.

I do like the slightly longer eye relief the Nikon offers and the multi-coated lens too. Can someone point out any advantages the Leupold offers over the Nikon.

I've got a Leupold 1.5 - 5x on my CZ in 500 Jeffery in Talley QR rings. It's lived through 400 rounds on my 500 Jeffery so far and hasn't even shifted POI even though I've taken the scope off and on half a dozen times. At least 200 of those rounds were full power (570g at 2300 fps) some were stiffer. I'm sure there's lots of folks on here with a lot more experience with Leupolds than I on hard kicking rifles ...


Regards,

Chuck

I think both companies will stand behind the product. I am sure Leupold will.

I have a Nikon on my 505 gibbs but less than 20 shots fired (600 and 535 gr factory loads). FWIW.

Eye relief is nice, but its not much use if you cannot move the scope forward. The real limitation for a gun like Ruger or CZ is who makes the shorter eye piece. My above mentioned Nikon is mounted on a special weaver base, so it could be setup in a more forward position. That let me use the full 5 inch eye relief on that model.

Our shop quit handling Nikon because they would not stand behind their product when the scopes had problems. Leupold will either fix the problem or give you a new scope, period!

Leupold handle recoil much better then a Nikon as well. Nuf said.

Leupold 1.75 x 6 would be a better choice. More light gathering and easier to see through.

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
Our shop quit handling Nikon because they would not stand behind their product when the scopes had problems.

I sent a 3x-9x Monarch that wouldn't hold zero back to Nikon and they sent me a brand new scope.

George

Ok – so far the poll show the Leupold ahead in the votes. One reply indicated their shop quit carrying Nikon due to their experience of Nikon not standing behind the product. The counter point being that both myself and one other poster have had what we have expressed as very satisfactory repair/replacement service dealing directly with Nikon USA. Not saying Leupold isn’t top shelf with their repair/replacement service either. Has anyone had a negative experience getting something repaired/replaced by Leupold?

Is there a possibility that with the price point of Leupold products being significantly higher than the similar Nikon product, total unit sales of Nikon would be higher than Leupold and therefore generate numerically more units returned for repair/replacement? Example, company A sells 100,000 units (scopes) and company B sells 30,000 units. Company A has 5000 returned for repair/replacement and Company B has 1500 returned for repair/replacement. Both companies don’t charge any fees – except the cost of getting the unit to the repair facility. Statistically the failure rates are the same - .05%

Purely curiosity question for Dwright; From your post it could be presumed that your shop carried both Nikon and Leupold at some point. During this time any idea of the ratio of Nikon to Leupold sold was? Not trying to get into your business in any way nor implying any disrespect for the business decision made, just trying to help understand it. If you sold 10 Nikon to every Leupold sold and if the quality of both are relatively similar then it would stand that you would possibly get ten times the return/repair rate on the Nikons as well.

Again, just trying to see if the higher 25-30% higher price difference of the Leupold is justified. So far, from the posts and company web site info: a) both seem to have identical warranty/repair policies (but some experiences may vary), b) the Nikon has a little more eye relief c) Nikon has fully multi-coated lenses d) the Nikon is purpose built for the hard recoiling big bores e) the Nikon has a significantly better price point. What can the Leupold voters provide to help justify the higher price other than higher anticipated resale value?

I have thought many times about buying one of the scopes but I am not sure it is the best route for a heavy recoiling rifle. You may note that it only offers 3.3" of eye relief on the top end. The lowest of any Leupold variable.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Leupold 1.75 x 6 would be a better choice. More light gathering and easier to see through.

Been there, done that. Leupold for me. Plenty of eye relief for a 458.

OK - Just closed the deal and sent the fund for a Leupold. Was able to find one used "Like new with box and original papers" for $215 delivered. I was honestly leaning hard toward the Nikon but the price was too good to pass up.

Thank for taking the time to read, vote and offer advice.

Good deal.

Another low cost alternative would have been a Leupy shotgun 1-4x. Should work for a short range 458WM scope. Under $200 retail. Nikon also made a great UCC 1-4x straight tube shotgun scope, but it was discontinued. These both have the look of a safari scope, without the extra safari-you price.

quote:

Originally posted by m3taco:
OK - Just closed the deal and sent the fund for a Leupold. Was able to find one used "Like new with box and original papers" for $215 delivered. I was honestly leaning hard toward the Nikon but the price was too good to pass up.

Thank for taking the time to read, vote and offer advice.

You won't be sorry.

I have used them all (and I mean all) and I have never been disappointed in the optics, quality or reliability of Leupolds.

I can't speak to Nikon's warranty work - never had to send one back, but the one Leupold (a Vari X III) I did send back after my cousin fell and caused fatal damage to the scope, was replaced at no cost.

I bought the Leupold for my 416 Taylor and have at least a dozen other Leos. If anything ever goes wrong w/ one, just pick up the phone--old fashion customer service by someone who speaks english.
As for the extra heavy recoil calibers, there was an article in rifle a/b Echols Legend that said he would not recommend any scope for the Lott b/c he hasn't found one that will survive the recoil. Even the best stuff has limitations.

quote:

Originally posted by GeorgeS:

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
Our shop quit handling Nikon because they would not stand behind their product when the scopes had problems.

I sent a 3x-9x Monarch that wouldn't hold zero back to Nikon and they sent me a brand new scope.

George

...that probably won't hold zero...

In 50 years of hunting with Leupolds...many hunts and many scopes...I have yet to have a failure. I have had a Nikon fall apart and Nikon binocs fog, a Swaro self destruct, and a Zeiss loose a reticule. Two Denver Redfields had lenses loosen, and several Weavers got cloudy...but not problem one with a Loopy.

I just put a 1-4 Leupy on my 458. I have used their scopes for 32 years without so much as a hiccup.

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
I have thought many times about buying one of the scopes but I am not sure it is the best route for a heavy recoiling rifle. You may note that it only offers 3.3" of eye relief on the top end. The lowest of any Leupold variable.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Leupold 1.75 x 6 would be a better choice. More light gathering and easier to see through.

I have this scope on a model 70 416 Rem Mag and have had no problems at all with eye relief even when shooting off the bench.