Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

AnswersASK YOUR QUESTION

Answers

Q:
Who probably makes better scopes? Nikon or Leupold? And is Nikon's B.D.C. reticle accurate for 308's?

Question by HunterDue. Uploaded on February 10, 2010

Answers (13)

Top Rated
All Answers
from firehawk532 wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

Nikon is an excellent product but I think Leupold has a much better all around product their quality & durability seem much better so if I can afford the extra $$ I'll buy the Leupold every time.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

HANDS DOWN, Leupold!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

The upper level Nikon scopes are excellent optics. Worth the money. However, I feel Leupold has something extra to offer at each price level over other scope makers. The life time warranty and made in the USA quality also help.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

Nikon has a well deserved, respected reputation for excellent optics, and they've made a concerted and productive effort to address this market; however, Leupold has extensive experience and an enviable reputation. My Leupold scopes have served me well under the most demanding conditions. I think Nikon provides a good product, but I agree with the gentlemen who've already expressed the opinion that Leupold is worth the additonal expense.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ARhunter wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

leupold has higher price higher class scopes. nikon makes lower class but more diverse scopes. kinda like realtree and mossy oak. As for the bdc thing i think you can do it with any caliber.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MN_deer wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

Looks like everyone tilts Leupold- so I won't beat that horse. But getting to your question on the BDC- I just bought one (Buckmaster) and put it on a Tikka 270- works beautifully. Someone just did a review of all BDC-style scopes (Outdoor Life?) in the last couple months. Reaffirmed my choice was one of the best. The Nikons came out on top for accuracy with their "circles" (even versus Burris, etc. and the others' respective hash marks). The one thing I don't like is those circles cover a lot of area the further out you go.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HunterDue wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

thanks for the anwsers!i have a leupold and a nikon.i like them both, but the leupold seems like it is more rugged and durable than the nikon.But the nikon has bdc and seems to be better in low light conditions. i like them both and think my next scope should be either a leupold or nikon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

I've owned and used Nikon and Leupold for more than 20 years. Both are excellent manufacturers with top-quality products.

That being said, the last three scopes I've purchased in the past 18 months have all been Nikon Monarchs, two with BDC. Why? Because they have light transmission that is slightly higher than Leupold, and the dimensions were more tidy than the related Leupolds. Only Swarovksi and Zeiss have light transmission that can match the Nikon Monarch, but you've got to spend almost $2,000 on their very top-of the-line product to get it.

The Nikon Monarchs also cost less than the related Leupolds. Maybe because Nikon makes their own glass while Leupold purchases theirs from another manufacturer.

Anyway, I'll never give up my existing Leupolds. No reason to.

By the way, I put one BDC on a Tikka T3 .270 and the other BDC on a sub-MOA Weatherby .30-06, for two entirely different purposes. The Tikka got one because I thought the circles might help fast target acquistion in the Colorado high country for elk. It worked just as planned last October.

The Weatherby got one because I wanted to test the circles for long-range accuracy/reliability out to 500 yards (versus my mil-dot scopes). I have to say I am impressed with the results. The circles offer several aim-points within each (think quarters) to allow for windage. You can see details of what I mean in the Nikon literature. To sum up without making this any longer: If I was strictly range-shooting and I have my wind instruments, I'll take the mil-dots. Out in the field hunting, the circles offer an advantage. Both take practice, so don't think you can get a BDC or any other long-range system and then hit targets past 300 yards without a lot of practice.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

They're both good, but Leopold's are made in the USA, and have an excellent warranty record. Who needs the jobs more right now, America or Japan?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hunt3r wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

if you get a nikon, i would suggest not going with anything but a monarch. i've had them and their awesome scopes. i like the loopy's better.
as far as the bdc goes...there are different cartridges and therefore different results. it will probably not subtend exactily to your firearm, or anyone elses for that matter, but it can give you holdover reference points if you are willing to put the time and effort into practicing with the optics and making sure you know where yoru bullet will hit.

a good rule of thumb is to only shoot in the field as far as you've shot accurately before under FIELD CONDITIONS. bench shooting is a different animal.
pracice a lot, learn to dope the wind...it has more effect on a bullet than most people understand. long range shooting is fun and rewarding, fun, and can be productive... but ethical for very very very few.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from IanS wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

I think Leupold makes the best scopes on the planet.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

They are both fine scopes. Get the one you like best and go practice. I am somewhat apprehensive about Leupold's quality now seeing how many models and numbers of scopes that the make annually, but I own a slew of theem with no complaints so far.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JerryQuill wrote 6 weeks 20 hours ago

I've used both scopes and I lean toward the Leopold for all the reasons mentioned above. It was a very important comment that MN_deer made about Nikon using those circles as the center point instead of the cross hair. I had a Nikon 223 scope with an oval in the center on a varmint model and I hated it. Never again.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post an Answer

from firehawk532 wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

Nikon is an excellent product but I think Leupold has a much better all around product their quality & durability seem much better so if I can afford the extra $$ I'll buy the Leupold every time.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

The upper level Nikon scopes are excellent optics. Worth the money. However, I feel Leupold has something extra to offer at each price level over other scope makers. The life time warranty and made in the USA quality also help.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

Nikon has a well deserved, respected reputation for excellent optics, and they've made a concerted and productive effort to address this market; however, Leupold has extensive experience and an enviable reputation. My Leupold scopes have served me well under the most demanding conditions. I think Nikon provides a good product, but I agree with the gentlemen who've already expressed the opinion that Leupold is worth the additonal expense.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

HANDS DOWN, Leupold!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ARhunter wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

leupold has higher price higher class scopes. nikon makes lower class but more diverse scopes. kinda like realtree and mossy oak. As for the bdc thing i think you can do it with any caliber.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MN_deer wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

Looks like everyone tilts Leupold- so I won't beat that horse. But getting to your question on the BDC- I just bought one (Buckmaster) and put it on a Tikka 270- works beautifully. Someone just did a review of all BDC-style scopes (Outdoor Life?) in the last couple months. Reaffirmed my choice was one of the best. The Nikons came out on top for accuracy with their "circles" (even versus Burris, etc. and the others' respective hash marks). The one thing I don't like is those circles cover a lot of area the further out you go.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

I've owned and used Nikon and Leupold for more than 20 years. Both are excellent manufacturers with top-quality products.

That being said, the last three scopes I've purchased in the past 18 months have all been Nikon Monarchs, two with BDC. Why? Because they have light transmission that is slightly higher than Leupold, and the dimensions were more tidy than the related Leupolds. Only Swarovksi and Zeiss have light transmission that can match the Nikon Monarch, but you've got to spend almost $2,000 on their very top-of the-line product to get it.

The Nikon Monarchs also cost less than the related Leupolds. Maybe because Nikon makes their own glass while Leupold purchases theirs from another manufacturer.

Anyway, I'll never give up my existing Leupolds. No reason to.

By the way, I put one BDC on a Tikka T3 .270 and the other BDC on a sub-MOA Weatherby .30-06, for two entirely different purposes. The Tikka got one because I thought the circles might help fast target acquistion in the Colorado high country for elk. It worked just as planned last October.

The Weatherby got one because I wanted to test the circles for long-range accuracy/reliability out to 500 yards (versus my mil-dot scopes). I have to say I am impressed with the results. The circles offer several aim-points within each (think quarters) to allow for windage. You can see details of what I mean in the Nikon literature. To sum up without making this any longer: If I was strictly range-shooting and I have my wind instruments, I'll take the mil-dots. Out in the field hunting, the circles offer an advantage. Both take practice, so don't think you can get a BDC or any other long-range system and then hit targets past 300 yards without a lot of practice.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

They're both good, but Leopold's are made in the USA, and have an excellent warranty record. Who needs the jobs more right now, America or Japan?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HunterDue wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

thanks for the anwsers!i have a leupold and a nikon.i like them both, but the leupold seems like it is more rugged and durable than the nikon.But the nikon has bdc and seems to be better in low light conditions. i like them both and think my next scope should be either a leupold or nikon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hunt3r wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

if you get a nikon, i would suggest not going with anything but a monarch. i've had them and their awesome scopes. i like the loopy's better.
as far as the bdc goes...there are different cartridges and therefore different results. it will probably not subtend exactily to your firearm, or anyone elses for that matter, but it can give you holdover reference points if you are willing to put the time and effort into practicing with the optics and making sure you know where yoru bullet will hit.

a good rule of thumb is to only shoot in the field as far as you've shot accurately before under FIELD CONDITIONS. bench shooting is a different animal.
pracice a lot, learn to dope the wind...it has more effect on a bullet than most people understand. long range shooting is fun and rewarding, fun, and can be productive... but ethical for very very very few.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from IanS wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

I think Leupold makes the best scopes on the planet.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 9 weeks ago

They are both fine scopes. Get the one you like best and go practice. I am somewhat apprehensive about Leupold's quality now seeing how many models and numbers of scopes that the make annually, but I own a slew of theem with no complaints so far.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JerryQuill wrote 6 weeks 20 hours ago

I've used both scopes and I lean toward the Leopold for all the reasons mentioned above. It was a very important comment that MN_deer made about Nikon using those circles as the center point instead of the cross hair. I had a Nikon 223 scope with an oval in the center on a varmint model and I hated it. Never again.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post an Answer