How would you rate these scope companies: Leupold, Nikon, Bushnell, Burris and Redfield?

[AAM]

How would you rate these scope companies: Leupold, Nikon, Bushnell, Burris and Redfield?

[FirstBubba]

1. Leupold
2. Redfield
3. Nikon, Burris
4. Bushnell makes "okay" barnacles!

[WA Mtnhunter]

1 Leupold
2 Burris
3 Redfield/Nikon
5 Bushnell

[Treestand]

1 Burris/Leupold
2 Redfield/Bushnell Elite
3 Nikon

[jhjimbo]

I consider Leupold, Burris similar for equal models/with equal features and price point.
The other three are in a similar group of comparable priced scopes.

[Douglas]

I prefer Leupold. I have three Nikons and they are fine. I have a Bushnell Elite 4200 that I really like. Never owned any of the others, but all things considered, all of them are comparable within the price points.

[DakotaMan]

Leupold
Burris/Bushnell
Nikon
Redfield

Of these the Leupold/Redfield warranty/ customer service is the best. All but Redfield have a line of scopes with quality in direct proportion to price. Leupold sets the standard for good scopes throughout their line at each price point but they tend to cost more than similar scopes at each level.

I have a Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24x Tactical that I like and the Burris C4 is a great long range varmint scope too. Burris and Bushnell have populated the planet with very low cost, bottom of the line trash scopes but they also make some good ones if you are willing to pay the price.

Nikon makes scopes that are competitive at each price point. The Monarch line has very good glass. I use one for deer/elk hunting on my 30-06 and like it.

The Redfields are nice for general hunting but are low end scopes. I don't care for their light transmission, field of view or the thick reticle but the importance of these features depends on how you intend to use it. In the 70's they were top notch hunting scopes; now they are decent competitors in the $150-$200 low end range of scopes.

My first choice is always Leupold but I'll use Vortex, Nikon, Bushnell and Burris if I don't want to spend the money.

[Clay Cooper]

There's only one scope, LEUPOLD!
The others are poor imitations!!!

[Sarge01]

I have been using one of the poor imitations, giving them some rough treatment, for over 50 years with nothing but outstanding results and without one of them going bad. I also use their binos and cameras too.

[Amflyer]

Redfield and Bushnell are both the best, scoring 13 pts each in Scrabble. Leupold is next at 10 pts, Nikon at 9 pts, and the lowly Burris dead last, scoring only 8 pts.

Keep in mind that Svarovski scopes, widely regarded as the best you can get, scores 19 Scrabble word points. That's probably why they cost so much too.

[Live4Bowhunting]

I agree with Clay but as for me the choices would go Leupold, Bushnell, and Redfield. Never had any dealing with Burris and although Nikon has some good scopes, their customer service, or lack of has totally turned me off of their products all together. I did put a new Cabela's Euro on my .270 and love it's clarity and light gathering capabilities. This scope replaced an old Redfield Widefield 2x7x32 that was put on in the late 70's and was very sad that day I took it off because it lost all the nitrogen and turned all yellow inside.

[Guest]

1 Leupold
2 Burris
3 Redfield
4 Bushnell
No experience with Nikon scopes, but their binoculars and rangefinder have served me well.

[WA Mtnhunter]

Obviously some have never experienced Burris' line of U.S. Made scopes like the Signature Select, Black Diamond, or Six X series.

[Amflyer]

Actually, this whole question is pretty subjective. Which would you rather shoot: A Burris Sig Select, or a Leupold Rifleman scope?

I think if you actually compare the scopes across a certain $$ amount, you'd find a lot of parity.

[Sarge01]

You have made a valid point, which would I rather shoot a Nikon Monarch or a Leupold Rifleman. The answer is the Monarch every time. You are trying to compare apples and oranges trying to compare the top of the line scopes of one to the bottom of the line of others.