Scope Test

[Guest Hunter2]

I just got back from Bass Pro doing a test on two scopes, the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10 x 42 vs the Burris 3-9x40 E1. I wanted to see the new C4 reticle but they didn’t have them yet. The Nikon should have had the advantage with the larger main lens. I want to set up a new rifle and had the Nikon Monarch 3-12x42 as my top choice. After comparing the two scopes mentioned having both scopes set to 9 on magnification, I couldn’t believe what I saw. The Burris was noticeably brighter looking at several different objects dark and light and it was just as clear. The sales person was a Nikon person and made that clear before we did the test.  I asked him to look and compare and he couldn’t believe it and agreed the Burris was brighter. The Nikon was my first choice but now I am not sure. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

 

 

[piercedan]

All other aspects being equal, I say go with what works best. Image is everything.

[RED333]

My boss swears by a 9x, he said anything stronger is not as bright, it is all about light getting in the scope.

[Guest Hunter2]

If someone has the time I would like them to do the same test. I went in knowing the Nikon was brighter and was wrong. I haven't heard anyone say they held both side by side just what they say should be considered in a purchase. I know the Burris is durable and accurate I have had one for years. I thought it would be an upgrade, but is it.

[DaveTN]

Plenty of low cost scopes are bright. Optical quality, clarity, repeatability and parallax are other issues.

[vujade]

Plenty of low cost scopes are bright. Optical quality, clarity, repeatability and parallax are other issues.

 

What I like to do is look for tiny writings on signs around a store and see if i can read it.  Or I look for something with vertical/horizontal thin black lines (like a bar code) and see how sharp the image is at some distance. 

 

I like my Nikon.  It's a Buckmasters 4-14x.  clear, sharp (can see barcodes lines seperately) and the parallax adjustment is perfect per distance.

[Guest Hunter2]

But has anyone done a one on one test, not just that's what I shot so its better feeling. When it comes to brands there is a lot of he said that they said type information, untested. I was hoping the Nikon would be. I want to try some more tests also.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Hunter2

[orientalexpress]

A larger objective doesn't allow more light. Just a larger field of view. Glass Quality and tube size factor in more than objective size.

[MarkInNashville]

A larger objective doesn't allow more light. Just a larger field of view. Glass Quality and tube size factor in more than objective size.

No, a larger objective lens MAY allow more light, depends on the lens. I know nothing about scopes but my other hobby is photography... I am a Canon shooter but I would have thought the Nikon would have been better, as they do know lots about lenses but if the Burris was better (and the guy that worked there thought the same thing)... whats the point? Are you trying to get someone else to agree with the 2 of yall or are you trying to convert people? It wouldn't be the first time David whupted the giant's butt!

[Guest LittleBear571]

I have owned and loved several Nikon scopes, bit my buddy has an AR with a nice Burris on it (don't know what exact model) but that scope is a thing of beauty. Very bright and clear.

[Guest Hunter2]

I want to make sure I am getting the clearest and brightest scope when I put one on a new gun. I went in thinking the Nikon would be brighter under any conditions, wrong. I want to get them outside and test. What concerns me about the Nikon responses are not side by side comparison opinions just saying its about the obvious for scopes which most better scopes do that I have read about.

[TnShooter83]

Clear and Bright are are 2 very important factors of a nice scope. But you also need to match the scope to the style of shooting.

If you plan to adjust the windage and elevation in the field you will need to be sure the scope is true in click EACH time you go from one zero to the next.

As far as Burris and Nikon go, I have shot both. I have only Zeroed them ONCE. The Nikon Was on a 12ga shotgun. It held Zero fine. The Burris was on a 30-03, it too held great.

If you like the Burris, get it. But you may need to seek more help from others that "use" the scope if you plan to adjust it in the field. The last thing you want to do is know how many "clicks" you need

to get you back to zero, but miss due to the "clicks" not being the same each time. 

[Guest Hunter2]

True, have you gone to the Burris site to see the new C4 they have. I am not to worried about that though even though it would be nice. A .270 with a 130 grain Hornady SST superformance shoots even flatter than my 7mm mag.

[HvBikeWlTravel]

My experience from 25 years ago; compared a $300 Nikon to a $350 Leopold at 150 yds+/- looking at an old barn. With the Nikon 3x9 I could clearly see grain in wood planks that were undetectable with the 3x9 Leopold. Visual winner Nikon! Now which would hold up in in-climate weather and take the most recoil from a magnum caliber; your guess may be better than mine. I had 2 Burris Pistol Scopes that held up quite well on 7mm BR XPs.   And I've got a Tasco World-Class that's been on a VGL .308 and a 788 7-08. Still clear and functioning 20+ years later on a Win. model 59!  Yes that's a .22.          L.R.!