Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Leupold or Nikon a better scope? and if i am looking to put a scope on my Remingon 700 270, what size should i put on it in t

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DakotaMan
    replied
    I have both and like both. Each has several models that vary directly in quality as the price goes up or down. I consider Leupold to have superior optics in their models costing over $800. In both, the low cost scopes have limitations but may be fine for your intended use and budget.

    With rifles, accuracy is my primary concern followed by field of view and clarity so you can see your target and acquire it quickly. The Nikon Monarch is a high quality scope and anything at or above the Leupold VX III is a high quality scope. The VXIII and above are tops in accuracy and reliability.

    Magnification is up to you depending on your hunting conditions. For deep timber situations, 2-7x, 3-9x or 2.5-10x are great. I use the latter if I can. If you are hunting on open terrain at distances out to 400 yards and beyond I consider 4-14x or 4-16x to be good all around hunting magnifications. If you have an exceptionally accurate barrel and intend to hunt at very long range and varmint hunt/target shoot, a magnification in the range of 6-24x will suit you well. I use this magnification on all my varmint and long range rifles so I can see distinctly at 500-1000 yards.

    I like the Nikon BDC reticle. It allows you to aim precisely out to 600 yards which is within deer range for your .270 if you have an accurate barrel and are an accomplished marksman.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sarge01
    replied
    chuckles,
    You are right you can't go wrong with any of the upper end scopes of the major manufactures. They have quality products. I may step on toes but I have learned from experience over the last 50+ years to stay away from TASCO, Simmons, Bushnell etc. I usually stay away from the lower end of any manufacture even Nikon and Leupold. I do have a 2 Nikon Prostaff's that I bought over 15 years ago and I use them on a .22 Hornet and a .223 that I throw around in my pickup and on my 4-wheeler. Both Nikon and Leupold advertise lifetime warranty. In over 40 years I haven't had a problem with any of my Nikon scopes to try their customer service but a friend of mine had a pair of binos fog up and they replaced them free of charge. I have heard good things about Leupold's customer service too. These are the only two scopes I would even consider putting on my rifles. I don't have the finances or the need to put Nightforce or Swarovski scopes on my rifles. I'm sure they would be nice. When working as an Officer I would say that in my neck of the woods about 98% of all scopes on the guns of deer hunters that I checked were 3X9X40. It seems like in the sporting goods stores here that is what you will find too about 98% 3X9X40 scopes. I'm sure that other areas of the country probably are different. I had an off brand scope(which I thought was a bargain) go bad on a pararie dog hunt in Montana and had to buy a new scope and found a Nikon Buckmaster 4X14X40 in the store out there . I wouldn't have found that in a store here.

    Leave a comment:


  • chuckles
    replied
    Well I'm glad that's settled.
    I have both and at the lower end of the spectrum I would go with Nikon. The Prostaff is a really good scope for the money. I do not have any of their higher end scopes but guys like Sarge sing their praises.
    When I buy a higher end scope I usually go with Leupold and I love every one of them.
    So at least you know you will get a good scope either way.
    As far as size goes I would not go higher than 3x9. I usually buy 2x7x33-36 but just about all of my hunting is in thick woods.
    Good luck whichever way you go!

    Leave a comment:


  • Safado
    replied
    I have had very good luck with Nikons.

    Leave a comment:


  • M.A.T
    replied
    But I forgot to add, $300 and up is where Leupold gets better than the other brands.

    Leave a comment:


  • M.A.T
    replied
    I think the higher end Leupolds are better than something in the same price range, but the lower end Leupolds aren't as comparable to something in the same price range. So, in simpler terms, what I'm trying to say is that a $500 Leupold will probaly be better than another $500 scope and a $200 Leupold won't be as good as another $200 scope.

    Leave a comment:


  • kolbster
    replied
    its like comparing apples and oranges, i have both i like both, for the money i like Nikon Prostaff that is my go to scope with i am buying a new rifle, there customer service is excellent.

    Leave a comment:


  • vasportsman
    replied
    I have been very impressed with the Nikon Prostaff on my Father-in-law's Weatherby, I use an older Bushnell and it has never failed me. As far as magnification I think that is more personal preference, I prefer a lower powered scope to make sure I can find a brown animal in a brown field.

    Leave a comment:


  • jay
    replied
    There is alot of competition in the scope market and similar priced scopes are going to be pretty much the same. The thing to look at is warranty and customer service. Leupold service is very good. I do not know about Nikon. My buddies say Vortex has phenomenal customer service. Personally, I stick to Leupold because they have never failed me.

    Leave a comment:


  • IND_NRA
    replied
    3x9x40 Nikon has worked well for me and it has taken a beating over the years, but still shoots true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Treestand
    replied
    I'm Partial to Sightron Scopes, But if I had to pick between Nikon and Leupold, it would have to be Leupold for the long haul.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sarge01
    replied
    I am partial to Nikons and I use 3X9X50 because in the dark timber where my stand is the 50MM gathers more light especially at dawn and at dusk and on overcast days. I have never had a Nikon let me down in over 40 years and I have abused some more than a person should.

    Leave a comment:


  • FirstBubba
    replied
    My personal experience. My personal choice.

    Unless you have some clandestine operation in mind, the Leupold 3-9x40mm is more than sufficient for any normal hunting applications. I have two. Both extremely accurate and reliable.

    Leave a comment:


  • country road
    replied
    I've had several of both and prefer the Nikon, strongly. I'd go for the 3.5 x 10 x 50 in the Monarch. I have three and love 'em.

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    Although the 3-9x40mm is the more popular choice these days, I would prefer a 2-7x33mm.
    I am not a subscriber to the "more is better" school of thought on magnification.
    IMHO, the 4-12X and the 4-16X mostly appeal to beginners, except for those few 600-yard experts among us with tons of experience.

    Leave a comment:

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X