Scope advice.
 

I'm looking for a new scope with 3-9 power and a 40mm objective. I want to stay right around 200. I'm leaning towards the Leupold VX-1 or the Nikon Buckmaster. It is for a .300 WSM that I will use at moderately short to mid range.

I have had a lot of experience with Leupolds and have a lot of faith in them but I am hearing many good things about the Nikon's too.

Any suggestions on which of these is better or any suggestions on any other brands.

I don't have advice exactly on who you would prefer for a rifle scope. My background is more in binoculars and spotting scopes. With that said, both have a good reputation. I know Leupold also has a good rep in rifle scopes too. I would however go with Nikon as I know there optics fairly well and know they make a first class optical lens. On another note, Nikon manufactures there own lenses and Leupold purchases there lenses from a Japanese manufacture. I don't know who though and that also doesn't mean they are any less quality then Nikon.
If it were my purchase I would buy Nikon.

Nikon scopes have very good glass, but a reputation for losing zero. This has been reputed to be improving lately, however, and several of our customers used Nikon optics with no problem. How much cash are you looking to spend? If you're thinking that a Leupold is in your price-range, I say jump on it. If you feel like you can spend a little more dough, look into Shepherd Scopes or I.O.R. Valdada-Bucharesti. Both are a little pricier, but both have great glass, extremely solid construction, and excellent reputations for holding zero. They also both feature built-in rangefinders, with the Shepherd system be, IMO, one of the best on the market right now. I.O.R. uses Zeiss equipment, so you're basically getting a Zeiss scope for 1/2 price.

Both have lifetime warrenties, and excellent glass, go to a sporting shop that stocks both brands and take a gander. Whichever brand you like get.

I went to the local Gander Mountain and took a look through both scopes. Their optics seemed to be very close to one another. The salesman heavily favored the Nikon because he said that the company had made more recent innovations. I don't need any frills though.

Just based on the fact that I have used a Leupold shotgun scope since I was 18 and have never had to even open the adjustment caps in that time I will probably lean that way.

200 bucks sounds skimpy for a scope thats gonna take a lot of battering....

the scope is the LAST place you want to try to saver money here...


but being presented with those two options, I'd get the Leupold

200 dollars is on the low side but both have a lifetime warranty and I have never known any one with a Leupold to need any repair work on theirs.

I just purchased a Nikon Buckmaster last summer to mount on a Rem 700 in 30-06. Very impressed with the scope and gun combination. I looked at the Leupolds as well,and a very nice and reliable scope, I thought the optics looked a bit clearer in the Nikon.

As far as the price, I considered what I would be doing with the gun. It gets used for our annual deer season, mid range shooting mostly, and bear hunting every 5 years. If I were to throw in annual elk, or long range western or much more intense and demanding hunts, I may have stepped up. Budgets were a factor.

I have a 4.5-14 Leupold on my 220 swift but i also have a 2-7 nikon on my muzzeloader. And from what i can tell you cant go wrong with either. But Leupold is in a class of there own in hunting scopes.